Jeremy Corbyn 'cannot support UK air strikes in Syria'

[bots]

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has written to his MPs saying he cannot back UK air strikes in Syria - prompting a warning of shadow cabinet resignations.

Mr Corbyn rejected David Cameron's claim that targeting so-called Islamic State there would make Britain safer.

His intervention - which puts him at odds with a number of his MPs - was criticised by a shadow cabinet member.

The frontbencher said there would be resignations if Mr Corbyn ordered the shadow cabinet to back his stance.

Labour is divided on whether to support Mr Cameron's call for air strikes, with about half of the shadow cabinet believed to back intervention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34939109

-----------------------

This could finish him off.

[Kizzy]

How many Corbyn based threads are there now?...

[bots]

How many Corbyn based threads are there now?...

its news innit

[arista]

Yes Of Course he is Against it


Everyone knows it

[Kizzy]

Yes Of Course he is Against it


Everyone knows it

Yes it's a bit yesterdays news, it's stated on the other 100 Corbyn threads.

[bots]

Yes it's a bit yesterdays news, it's stated on the other 100 Corbyn threads.

I wasn't aware I needed your permission to post. This is brand new news 1 hour ago from the BBC news site

[smudgie]

The best way forward is for a free vote, let them all vote with their conscience.

[MTVN]

There is one other thread on Jeremy Corbyn on this page of SD and that is a general thread about his leadership. This is a very recent news story with implications for the Labour party and UK politics in general, nothing wrong with having a thread about it.

[Kizzy]

I wasn't aware I needed your permission to post. This is brand new news 1 hour ago from the BBC news site

Well I've thought about it and I'll allow it this once ok?....

[bots]

Well I've thought about it and I'll allow it this once ok?....

ok :joker:

[Vicky.]

The best way forward is for a free vote, let them all vote with their conscience.

I honestly thought this was what happened anyway?

[Vicky.]

If they don't make their own choices, wtf is the point in having a vote to start with? This is confusing me :laugh:

[bots]

If they don't make their own choices, wtf is the point in having a vote to start with? This is confusing me :laugh:

If Corbyn enforces the whip, the party must vote as instructed or lose the whip which means they no longer represent labour in the house.

If he allows a free vote, they can vote as per their consciences.

These are testing times for Corbyn as he went against the labour party many times when he was a back bencher .... how will he behave now.....

[Kizzy]

David Cameron’s case for UK military action in Syria has several highly contentious key points.

‘There is a credible military strategy to defeat Isil in Syria as well as Iraq’
If there is, no one has told the US. In private briefings and in public testimony to Congress, a long line of senior American officers have acknowledged frustration with the battle against Islamic State. General John Allen, who was in overall charge of the US campaign in Syria and Iraq, has quit after a year.

‘Airstrikes can degrade Isil and arrest its advance’
It is debatable whether this is true. The coalition repeatedly says it has shrunk the geographical area controlled by Isis by 30% in the past year, but in that same period Isis has advanced on and taken Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. In any event, Cameron goes on to concede that air strikes alone cannot defeat Isil.

‘We need partners on the ground’
Who is going to provide these troops on the ground? The Obama administration is opposed to deploying more ground troops. British military chiefs laugh off suggestions of committing tens of thousands of UK troops to take Raqqa.

So who is going to do it? The Kurds are too small a force, with little interest in fighting beyond neighbouring territory. The Iraqi army is riven by religious and ethnic divisions. The Free Syrian Army and similar groups have so far been largely ineffective – although Cameron says there are 70,000 anti-Assad non-Isis fighters available for the task.

How easy will it be to take the IS stronghold Raqqa?
The US had 170,000 troops in Iraq at the peak of the fighting in Iraq in 2007 and struggled to suppress the insurgent force, even though it was much smaller than IS. Quelling towns and cities often required house-by-housing fighting, with high casualties on both sides.

'Our intelligence is that there are 70,000 moderate Sunni forces’
Retired British brigadier Ben Barry, a specialist in land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimated a joint US-UK-French coalition would require 20,000 troops to retake Raqqa. He described the prospect as “challenging”, given that IS had been preparing its defences for the last year.

Rebel leaders claim to have 70,000 fighters but Cameron should have added that at present they are not much of a fighting force. The rebel forces are deeply divided among lots of competing factions. For many of them, the focus is fighting Assad’s forces around Damascus, not Isis.

Cameron said the intelligence about the 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels comes from ‘the highest level’
The one thing it might have been assumed that Cameron would avoid is an echo of the dodgy intelligence in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And yet he did just that, saying the intelligence about the 70,000 figure had come from the “highest level”. Who is this? The UK’s joint intelligence committee, which coordinates information from all the agencies and was responsible for the bogus claim in the run-up to the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein could hit a UK base with missiles within 45 minutes.

'Decisions to use force are not to be taken lightly’
Politicians nearly always say that. The British military, like their counterparts around the world, like to fight, to put into practice all those hours of training, but only if there is a clear strategy, a fixed objective, an endgame. And there is none at present.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrikes-cameron-case-highly-contentious

[joeysteele]

I think on balance and reluctantly,I would support the PM on this.

We were told we were helping 'decent' as far as was possible,opposition forces in Libya when we got involved there.
The opposite was the case and now Libya is near ungovernable at present.

This may be the case here too, however I think the PM is right that we must do something more than just watch now.
Hopefully he makes a better and clearer case when he asks for the vote on same however.

It should however be for all MPs and all parties a free vote.

[Vicky.]

Yeah realistically we cannot just sit and wait for them to hit more people :/

Maybe the air strikes don't help, but its better than nothing. I don't relish the idea of our strikes possibly killing innocents mind, but without intervention thousands more innocents will die. I don't see any other way past this :shrug:

[Mystic Mock]

I think that we should clean up our mess tbh, and once we've destroyed ISIS we leave that side of the world alone is my stance.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I would leave well alone tbh

We got the same bs before afghanistan/iraq/libya

lets face facts they killed 130 people in france out of what 66,000,000

its hardly an invasion

let them destroy themselves

[Kizzy]

HfXmpJRZPYI

What his son is doing I don't know :(

[arista]

HfXmpJRZPYI

What his son is doing I don't know :(


Yes a Classic Clip.


I assume his Son
is more right wing Labour

[arista]

We find out on Monday
from Labour.

The 30mins Daily Politics
today , said the only way to do it
is a Free Vote.


Once again JC sent letters out to all his cabinet
far to early

[Kazanne]

Blair and Bush should have left Iraq alone,yes Saddam was a bastard but the country sorted itself in it's own way,those two interfered and caused all this unrest in the middle East now,I cant see how Cameron can just sit back and wait for something terrible to happen here ,and it will.I back him on at least helping our allies.

[Kizzy]

Yes a Classic Clip.


I assume his Son
is more right wing Labour

Leeds central scene of the infamous plant in the televised debates prior to the election so...yeah.

[joeysteele]

Although I would just support it, I do feel it is very likely more than not, that we are making almost the same error as in Iraq.
Perhaps had we supported,well that's not the word,but tolerated the Assad rule,rather than initially get obsessed with regime change as Cameron was, then that may have been the better route.

Then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing that few can possess.
The PM has to get his way on this now,I add however 'unfortunately so',because I just about trust him as much as I would Blair,and that isn't saying anything positive at all..

[bots]

I have no problem with forcing the government to think through and justify its strategy before giving them the OK, but it should be a process of refinement with agreement in principle.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm with the 'No' vote on this.

Who are these moderate rebels Cameron speaks of? could they be the same rebels that are being backed by the west to topple the Syrian sovereignty? The same barbaric terrorists that behead their enemies, enslave their women and just like ISIS marry off child brides? Whilst the West has been fed a one sided story, if you bother to look, you will soon discover that uninterested nations are being drip fed the full picture and its very different from the one we are getting.

I would put money on our perception of Syria being hugely misleading one or that this so called 'war on terror' is going to end the same way it did in Libya and Iraq. We are all aware that Blair lied to us over Iraq and Cameron lied to us about Libya and yet here we all are once again, in the same place at a different time, nodding our heads in agreement with Cameron.

You can't make the same mistake over and over and expect a different result.

[DemolitionRed]

Just remind yourself what Cameron told us about ISIS and Assad before the Russians got involved. Everything Cameron is feeding us about Syria is full of holes.

[JoshBB]

Blair and Bush should have left Iraq alone,yes Saddam was a bastard but the country sorted itself in it's own way,those two interfered and caused all this unrest in the middle East now,I cant see how Cameron can just sit back and wait for something terrible to happen here ,and it will.I back him on at least helping our allies.

Isn't this what happened with Iraq though?

[bots]

Just remind yourself what Cameron told us about ISIS and Assad before the Russians got involved. Everything Cameron is feeding us about Syria is full of holes.

I agree they are not clear on strategy, but I still think its necessary to be able to take action against ISIS at its root. I personally would give agreement to the principle, but want a lot more work done on their strategy.

[joeysteele]

Just remind yourself what Cameron told us about ISIS and Assad before the Russians got involved. Everything Cameron is feeding us about Syria is full of holes.

I remember what he said about Libya too and the so called moderate forces we helped there.
Who near all virtually turned out to be almost as extreme as Gaddaffii and some even worse.

He does need a stronger argument next week and absolutely no fudging over things either.

[DemolitionRed]

@Bitontheslide

I think Russia were doing a pretty good job of that but we can't risk Russia dominating the middle east can we?!?!

@Joey

Yes, Libya was brought to its knees in the cruellest of ways too .

This is a really good radio debating channel that's worth listening to https://www.rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/317446-syria-russia-strikes-media/

[arista]

I'm with the 'No' vote on this.

Who are these moderate rebels Cameron speaks of? could they be the same rebels that are being backed by the west to topple the Syrian sovereignty? The same barbaric terrorists that behead their enemies, enslave their women and just like ISIS marry off child brides? Whilst the West has been fed a one sided story, if you bother to look, you will soon discover that uninterested nations are being drip fed the full picture and its very different from the one we are getting.

I would put money on our perception of Syria being hugely misleading one or that this so called 'war on terror' is going to end the same way it did in Libya and Iraq. We are all aware that Blair lied to us over Iraq and Cameron lied to us about Libya and yet here we all are once again, in the same place at a different time, nodding our heads in agreement with Cameron.

You can't make the same mistake over and over and expect a different result.

I fully understand you view DR
as USA and Intense Russia
Mega Bombing
is murdering innocents every day.



On Libya
on do not see the PM guilty as you say
as they set up 3 times
power - but as with all other nations
the Groups wanted nothing to do with it.
No way can hold a gun to people
and say you follow us.



Back to The Vote on Monday
more of Corbyn's Cabinet
want to vote for bombing

[joeysteele]

I fully understand you view DR
as USA and Intense Russia
Mega Bombing
is murdering innocents every day.



On Libya
on do not see the PM guilty as you say
as they set up 3 times
power - but as with all other nations
the Groups wanted nothing to do with it.
No way can hold a gun to people
and say you follow us.



Back to The Vote on Monday
more of Corbyn's Cabinet
want to vote for bombing

A fair number of Conservative MPs are against a new bombing campaign too.

I still say a free vote is the right thing to do here and if Jeremy Corbyn is against action and most of the Shadow Cabinet are for it, then that is for all their own consciences.
No one should be forced to vote as to any way against their conscience on this.

No matter what status they have in their respective Parties.
I'd support the action now myself were I an MP but I would equally defend totally the rights of all those opposed to any more action by us to vote as they wish too without petty criticism of them for doing so..
That would be real democracy.

[Tom4784]

I don't think we need to get involved yet, Let Russia and China lead the charge and get involved if the situation escalates. We should be wary of getting involved in it any further unless there's no other option.

[bots]

i think it should be a free vote too. It will be a defining moment for Corbyn if he insists labour vote against, and I don't think he would last long after if he does so.

[DemolitionRed]

I still say a free vote is the right thing to do here and if Jeremy Corbyn is against action and most of the Shadow Cabinet are for it, then that is for all their own consciences.
No one should be forced to vote as to any way against their conscience on this.

No matter what status they have in their respective Parties.
I'd support the action now myself were I an MP but I would equally defend totally the rights of all those opposed to any more action by us to vote as they wish too without petty criticism of them for doing so..
That would be real democracy.

I absolutely agree with what you've said.

[Kizzy]

RBQ-IoHfimQ

[kirklancaster]

I fully understand you view DR
as USA and Intense Russia
Mega Bombing
is murdering innocents every day.



On Libya
on do not see the PM guilty as you say
as they set up 3 times
power - but as with all other nations
the Groups wanted nothing to do with it.
No way can hold a gun to people
and say you follow us.

Back to The Vote on Monday
more of Corbyn's Cabinet
want to vote for bombing

As lamentable as innocent lives lost as 'collateral Damage' are Arista, the bombings are still not killing anywhere near the daily number which IS are.

[GiRTh]

This could turn out to be a genius move from Corbyn the last war we entered didnt do much for Tony Blairs reputation.

[kirklancaster]

I fully understand you view DR
as USA and Intense Russia
Mega Bombing
is murdering innocents every day.



On Libya
on do not see the PM guilty as you say
as they set up 3 times
power - but as with all other nations
the Groups wanted nothing to do with it.
No way can hold a gun to people
and say you follow us.



Back to The Vote on Monday
more of Corbyn's Cabinet
want to vote for bombing

A fair number of Conservative MPs are against a new bombing campaign too.

I still say a free vote is the right thing to do here and if Jeremy Corbyn is against action and most of the Shadow Cabinet are for it, then that is for all their own consciences.
No one should be forced to vote as to any way against their conscience on this.

No matter what status they have in their respective Parties.
I'd support the action now myself were I an MP but I would equally defend totally the rights of all those opposed to any more action by us to vote as they wish too without petty criticism of them for doing so..
That would be real democracy.



No intelligent fair-minded person would disagree with you here Joey. I certainly don't.

[bots]

The difference between Iraq and now is that Blair trumped up the idea that Saddam was a danger to us here without substance. No-one is in any doubt that ISIS are a real and present threat to us here and now.

[kirklancaster]

The difference between Iraq and now is that Blair trumped up the idea that Saddam was a danger to us here without substance. No-one is in any doubt that ISIS are a real and present threat to us here and now.

Great point BOTS.

[Kizzy]

Since 9/11 there has been a threat to us from various groups the taliban, al qaeda, hezbollah, jihadists, ISIS, ISIL.

How would bombing reduce that threat?

[kirklancaster]

Since 9/11 there has been a threat to us from various groups the taliban, al qaeda, hezbollah, jihadists, ISIS, ISIL.

How would bombing reduce that threat?

Reduce the living members of IS - reduce the threat. Eventually not enough IS members left to be a threat - No more threat. Simple maths.

[bots]

Since 9/11 there has been a threat to us from various groups the taliban, al qaeda, hezbollah, jihadists, ISIS, ISIL.

How would bombing reduce that threat?

Seriously, you have forgotten Afghanistan already? They were a threat, and action was taken. ISIS is another example

[Kizzy]

Seriously, you have forgotten Afghanistan already? They were a threat, and action was taken. ISIS is another example

Hang on you just said that Afghanistan was an unsubstantiated threat.

[Kizzy]

Reduce the living members of IS - reduce the threat. Eventually not enough IS members left to be a threat - No more threat. Simple maths.

Isn't the biggest threat to counter terrorism forces home grown terrorism?

[Livia]

What's the alternative? We sit back and let other people do our defending for us.

[kirklancaster]

Isn't the biggest threat to counter terrorism forces home grown terrorism?

Cut of ALL the Hydra's heads and the whole beast dies.

[bots]

Hang on you just said that Afghanistan was an unsubstantiated threat.

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

[kirklancaster]

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

:laugh:

[Kizzy]

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

Wasn't that trumped up during the gulf war in 1990 when Major was PM?

[bots]

Wasn't that trumped up during the gulf war in 1990 when Major was PM?

Saddam invaded Kuwait ... that wasn't trumped up

[Kizzy]

So he was a threat in 1990 but not in 2003?

And it wasn't Major as PM in in 1990 my mistake, it was Thatcher.
Or both haha

[bots]

So he was a threat in 1990 but not in 2003?

Completely different things. Kuwait, a neighbour of Iraq was invaded by them. A multi national force took back Kuwait. Years later Blair said Saddam could hit the UK with WMD's that he had in his possession. It was all false

Do I really need to go through every event?

[Kizzy]

Completely different things. Kuwait, a neighbour of Iraq was invaded by them. A multi national force took back Kuwait. Years later Blair said Saddam could hit the UK with WMD's that he had in his possession. It was all false

Do I really need to go through every event?

Well no you don't not sure why you are.
I wouldn't say that at any stage there has not been a threat in varying degrees since that point.

[bots]

Well no you don't not sure why you are.
I wouldn't say that at any stage there has not been a threat in varying degrees since that point.

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

[Kizzy]

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

And the bombing in 2011, what was that based on?

[DemolitionRed]

Reduce the living members of IS - reduce the threat. Eventually not enough IS members left to be a threat - No more threat. Simple maths.

The problem with this is, even if we killed nearly all ISIS members, we won't kill their idea... their ideology.

[Livia]

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

You're right, the two are incomparable.

[kirklancaster]

The problem with this is, even if we killed nearly all ISIS members, we won't kill their idea... their ideology.

Which 'ideology' is this Red?

[kirklancaster]

You're right, the two are incomparable.

Since when does 'being right' or even 'in the right' count for anything on here? :laugh::laugh:

[GiRTh]

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared
They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

[user104658]

The problem with this is, even if we killed nearly all ISIS members, we won't kill their idea... their ideology.
The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

[Livia]

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

Germany hadn't attacked us when we declared war in 1939.

[bots]

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

Lol I'm not going through this again with you. They are not similar in any way shape or form. We have been attacked here, our countrymen have been kidnapped and beheaded.

[GiRTh]

Germany hadn't attacked us when we declared war in 1939.
Would that be tolerated now? Would we be able to declare war in the way we did in 1939?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

:clap2: Agree complete TS. Us bombing Syria will make it so much easier for ISIS to recruit and radicalise more people.

[GiRTh]

Lol I'm not going through this again with you. They are not similar in any way shape or form. We have been attacked here, our countrymen have been kidnapped and beheaded.Our countrymen being attacked is not quite the same thing as an attack on this country.

[bots]

Our countrymen being attacked is not quite the same thing as an attack on this country.

lee rigby

the murder of British tourists in Tunisia. They were killed because they were British, the same way those poor sods were kidnapped and beheaded.

[GiRTh]

lee rigby

the murder of British tourists in Tunisia. They were killed because they were British, the same way those poor sods were kidnapped and beheaded.
Was the Lee Rigby assault an attack on the country? I though it was a nutcase

[bots]

Was the Lee Rigby assault an attack on the country? I though it was a nutcase

of course it was an assault on this country as was the murder of tourists and the beheadings.

[GiRTh]

of course it was an assault on this country as was the murder of tourists and the beheadings.It must be the most ineffective ever attack on the British ideal .

Just saying that Corbyn could , in a few years time with an election around the corner, look very good if the proposed military action does not go according to plan.

[kirklancaster]

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

Well while you're cringing - please enlighten us all as to just WHAT your solution is?

By the amount of people doing it on here, it seems it is the easiest thing in the world to keep popping up dissing and ridiculing other debaters ideas without actually ever actually proffering an alternative.

The IS bastards themselves in Palmyra are living proof of how easy it is to knock things down with no attempt at building.

[DemolitionRed]

ISIS know that Bush's previous war on terror was their biggest recruitment programme in modern terrorist history. Every one of those beheading videos was a very deliberate plan to draw us into exactly what we are doing now. We the West, have played right into their murderous hands.

The more we bomb, the faster their armies will grow.

ISIS was born out of the bombing of Iraq. This article was written back in 2006 before we had a name for them http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq

[GiRTh]

ISIS know that Bush's previous war on terror was their biggest recruitment programme in modern terrorist history. Every one of those beheading videos was a very deliberate plan to draw us into exactly what we are doing now. We the West, have played right into their murderous hands.

The more we bomb, the faster their armies will grow.

ISIS was born out of the bombing of Iraq. This article was written back in 2006 before we had a name for them http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq
:clap1:

[DemolitionRed]

Well while you're cringing - please enlighten us all as to just WHAT your solution is?



For a start we need to stop being played.
We must stop training and arming these so called moderate mercenaries who then turn their guns back on us.
We need to better align ourselves with Russia and allow Russia to lead this.
We need to look towards Rojava for solutions and stop worrying about Turkey's hatred of the curds.
We need to consider the outcome in Iraq and Libya and use that knowledge to work tactically and strategically.

[kirklancaster]

For a start we need to stop being played.
We must stop training and arming these so called moderate mercenaries who then turn their guns back on us.
We need to better align ourselves with Russia and allow Russia to lead this.
We need to look towards Rojava for solutions and stop worrying about Turkey's hatred of the curds.
We need to consider the outcome in Iraq and Libya and use that knowledge to work tactically and strategically.

:laugh: I was actually asking T.S but you have answered and I cannot fault what you're saying.

[user104658]

I don't have a solution Kirk. Human beings are violent warmongers... It's what we do, it's what we always have done since Ugg threw the first rock at Grogg for stealing his dinner, and Grogg responded by beating Ugg's children to death with a stick.

The only major difference is that we now have guerilla fighters and raiders who can cross the globe in under a day instead of having to crawl across it in wooden ships, and weapons tech that can vaporise a village (or half a country) at the press of a button. This was inevitable. War tech will continue to advance and that will be the death of the short-lived, terrifyingly violent human race. There isn't a solution.

Merry Xmas.

[Kizzy]

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

Oh yes that's right too, attack is the best form of defence seemingly.

[MTVN]

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

Not sure about that really: IS have gone way beyond the stage of scattered attacks. We don't like to call them a state but reality is they possess a huge amount of territory which they control very effectively with all the hallmarks of a country: they have a military, taxation, an education system and they even control things like rubbish collections in their areas. The Paris attacks were conjured in Syria and were directed from there with quite a high level of sophistication and coordination. They have defeated the Iraqi army several times despite being well outnumbered because they are better trained and more motivated. They are extremely powerful and should be treated as such. No we can't kill their ideology, but we can try and prevent that ideology becoming so potent.

[Kizzy]

Germany hadn't attacked us when we declared war in 1939.

Sorry I don't feel the two are comparable.

[joeysteele]

What I would like to know is why are the Conservative party so worried about the vote on Syria that they need to be ringing Labour MPs to try to persuade them to vote for it.

This Conservative party did get an overall majority in May, it has a 12 overall majority,increased to 16 since Sinn Fein do not take their seats at Westminster,,increased again to 17 since Labour have the Oldham seat vacant at present.
Then they are getting the votes of the DUP, which will bring the majority to 33 at least.
Since UKIPs Carswell will surely support them too.

How many of their own number are they terrified that will not vote for this to be so worried about not winning the vote,they should walk it if the Conservative MPs are to be forced to support same.
Never mind Labour divisions on this, it seems the Conservatives feel sure that without Labour support they will possibly lose the vote when it comes due to their own MPs dissent.

[bots]

Not sure about that really: IS have gone way beyond the stage of scattered attacks. We don't like to call them a state but reality is they possess a huge amount of territory which they control very effectively with all the hallmarks of a country: they have a military, taxation, an education system and they even control things like rubbish collections in their areas. The Paris attacks were conjured in Syria and were directed from there with quite a high level of sophistication and coordination. They have defeated the Iraqi army several times despite being well outnumbered because they are better trained and more motivated. They are extremely powerful and should be treated as such. No we can't kill their ideology, but we can try and prevent that ideology becoming so potent.

i agree with this, If we cripple their oil processing for example, we reduce their income. This means that they can't fund the campaigns that they are currently running. Destroy their heavy weaponry and they then become more vulnerable to attacks from the kurds and other arab forces.

These are standard techniques. We alter the odds so that they are in our favour. That's what targeted bombing does. No-one is suggesting we can beat ISIS by bombing alone. Its 1 element of an entire campaign

[MTVN]

What I would like to know is why are the Conservative party so worried about the vote on Syria that they need to be ringing Labour MPs to try to persuade them to vote for it.

This Conservative party did get an overall majority in May, it has a 12 overall majority,increased to 16 since Sinn Fein do not take their seats at Westminster,,increased again to 17 since Labour have the Oldham seat vacant at present.
Then they are getting the votes of the DUP, which will bring the majority to 33 at least.
Since UKIPs Carswell will surely support them too.

How many of their own number are they terrified that will not vote for this to be so worried about not winning the vote,they should walk it if the Conservative MPs are to be forced to support same.
Never mind Labour divisions on this, it seems the Conservatives feel sure that without Labour support they will possibly lose the vote when it comes due to their own MPs dissent.

There has always been a strand in the Conservative party that values isolationism though, and is sceptical about any intervention. There probably is a majority for this action now even if the whole of Labour votes against but the PM is being extra cautious because of the 2013 vote. There were 30 Tory rebels then so they are probably working on the assumption that there will be at least that many again even though I think that intervention now is a lot less controversial than it was back then. The Labour rebels - which there will be a lot of - will just make doubly sure that this passes with a comfortable majority and not be a very nervy vote for the government.

[joeysteele]

There has always been a strand in the Conservative party that values isolationism though, and is sceptical about any intervention. There probably is a majority for this action now even if the whole of Labour votes against but the PM is being extra cautious because of the 2013 vote. There were 30 Tory rebels then so they are probably working on the assumption that there will be at least that many again even though I think that intervention now is a lot less controversial than it was back then. The Labour rebels - which there will be a lot of - will just make doubly sure that this passes with a comfortable majority and not be a very nervy vote for the government.

I know that but the point is there are not just divisions in the Labour party on this but also in the Conservative party too.
Which few pay reference to only highlighting Labour divisions, while actually also overlooking too that over 100 Labour MPs voted against the Iraq intervention when Labour was in govt. at that time.

[MTVN]

Well the Conservative party aren't anywhere near as divided though are they. The Tory divisions amount to a few backbenchers, the Labour party has half the shadow cabinet opposed to their leader and that includes the shadow foreign secretary!

[joeysteele]

Well the Conservative party aren't anywhere near as divided though are they. The Tory divisions amount to a few backbenchers, the Labour party has half the shadow cabinet opposed to their leader and that includes the shadow foreign secretary!

Labour had divisions as I said when the Iraq vote was taken, I think around 130 voted against Blair on that.
There has always been divisions as to war fronts with Labour.

Cameron has an effective already on the surface of at least a 34 majority, so he must be worried that quite a good number of his MPs will not be supporting him to have his Cabinet ringing up Labour MPs.

I personally think that pathetic, all MPs should be left to consult their constituents, and then make their own minds up calmly,alone and then be able to vote with their conscience intact.
Cameron has either made the case good enough for our involvement or he hasn't, no one should be pressured either way on this in my view.

I also feel that Corbyn should and hopefully will allow Labour MPs a free vote on this, now I would like to see the same come from Cameron as to a free vote for his MPs too and lets see what is really the view of 'all' MPs.

Being in the shadow cabinet or even the actual govts cabinet should not mean you are forced to vote against your will and conscience on an issue like this.

[MTVN]

For a leader to openly disagree with his shadow foreign and defence secretaries is on a different level to Labour divisions over Iraq or to Tory divisions over Syria IMO. If MPs were always to make their own minds up then we would have a parliament full of independents but we don't: in a political party you have got to broadly be singing from the same hymn sheet especially amongst the party leadership. It's important to have that coherent and united party view or the party means very little. Corbyn himself realised this because he tried to force his party to vote against strikes but that has backfired miserably. Corbyn can't just be granting free vote after free vote because that will either make his position as leader untenable or it will make a lot of his shadow cabinet's positions untenable: something will have to give.

[bots]

Labour had divisions as I said when the Iraq vote was taken, I think around 130 voted against Blair on that.
There has always been divisions as to war fronts with Labour.

Cameron has an effective already on the surface of at least a 34 majority, so he must be worried that quite a good number of his MPs will not be supporting him to have his Cabinet ringing up Labour MPs.

I personally think that pathetic, all MPs should be left to consult their constituents, and then make their own minds up calmly,alone and then be able to vote with their conscience intact.
Cameron has either made the case good enough for our involvement or he hasn't, no one should be pressured either way on this in my view.

I also feel that Corbyn should and hopefully will allow Labour MPs a free vote on this, now I would like to see the same come from Cameron as to a free vote for his MPs too and lets see what is really the view of 'all' MPs.

Being in the shadow cabinet or even the actual govts cabinet should not mean you are forced to vote against your will and conscience on an issue like this.

Cameron only wants the vote if it is 100% certain to be carried. In those circumstances, they need to go round all those who will be voting to see which way they are going to vote

if the numbers aren't there, the vote will just disappear into silence.

As I've said before. I think the US/UK strategy sucks at the moment, but if there is an enemy to fight, I would give them agreement in principle and then argue out the details later. To do anything else is effectively tying our forces hands behind their backs and then telling them to go off and do something about ISIS.

We either have a threat or we don't. If the threat is agreed, then no-ones hands should be tied.

[Kizzy]

How come Corbyn is getting flack for trying to influence his MPs and yet Cameron contacting Labour MPs to request support is ok?

[lostalex]

I really didn't think that labour could find someone worse than David Millband to represent them. i was wrong.

[Northern Monkey]

For a leader to openly disagree with his shadow foreign and defence secretaries is on a different level to Labour divisions over Iraq or to Tory divisions over Syria IMO. If MPs were always to make their own minds up then we would have a parliament full of independents but we don't: in a political party you have got to broadly be singing from the same hymn sheet especially amongst the party leadership. It's important to have that coherent and united party view or the party means very little. Corbyn himself realised this because he tried to force his party to vote against strikes but that has backfired miserably. Corbyn can't just be granting free vote after free vote because that will either make his position as leader untenable or it will make a lot of his shadow cabinet's positions untenable: something will have to give.
Totally agree.

[kirklancaster]

I really didn't think that labour could find someone worse than David Millband to represent them. i was wrong.

The 'joke' won't last very long Alex. Thankfully.

[kirklancaster]

How come Corbyn is getting flack for trying to influence his MPs and yet Cameron contacting Labour MPs to request support is ok?

MOST of them are NOT Corbyn's MP's - as will eventually become transparent come 'the ides of March' and that 'Et tu Brute?' moment which we are all looking forward to.

[joeysteele]

How come Corbyn is getting flack for trying to influence his MPs and yet Cameron contacting Labour MPs to request support is ok?

You couldn't make it up, we do elect parties to govt as to their manifesto,nothing however in the Conservative manifesto was to extend UK bombing into Syria.

It is true parties make decisions near all the time as govts,however as to things like foxhunting, the death penalty , those things usually have a free vote, no matter what govt is in power.
This is another issue where I say all MPs should have a free vote on it.
As for Labour,I find it personally appalling so many Labour MPS are actually 'eager' to support this.
Learning nothing from Iraq and also in Libya too after this PMs disastrous intervention there.

If I was a Labour MP at present,then I would lean myself to supporting the PM, if he makes a far better case for it than he did last week however.
Were i to get a phonecall from a Conservative MP, trying to manipulate how I would vote then I would put the phone down and vote against it.

It is the shadow cabinet too who are ringing up Labour MPs,so desperate are they on this,yet no one could alter their thinking.
Pompous arrogance and it stuns me that parliament seems ready again to accept going into a conflict that we have no plans as to what takes place after.
You were right to compare this with Iraq, 'in that' we went into Iraq with no concrete or even decent plan for what happens after we did, and from what we heard last week, this PM is hell bent on getting involved in this mess now also and again with no decent concrete plan for the after effects.

I still say, it should be a free vote for 'all' MPs,and from 'all' parties too, and anyway,even if 80 or more Labour MPs vote in support, then that still means more Parties in parliament representing their constituents are against us being involved.
If this PM manipulates his tiny majority to force the UK into this conflict further, then ends up in the same chaos we had after Iraq and also Libya. not giving a free vote, then he should be politically damned for all time.


As for Labour's defence secretary and Foreign secretary being for it,well that is for their consciences, and if Corbyn gives a free vote to Labour MPs, that is healthy and good in my view that they can still then vote as to their will and conscience and also him as to his.
Perfectly fair and reasonable.

[bots]

As reported on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34956795

There are not enough yes votes to allow for Jeremy saying all labour must vote no

Jeremy needs to make up his mind on allowing a free vote or not. This is a very critical moment for Jeremy. He is quoted as saying "we will come to a decision as a party" which implies it will not be a free vote

[joeysteele]

As reported on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34956795

There are not enough yes votes to allow for Jeremy saying all labour must vote no

Jeremy needs to make up his mind on allowing a free vote or not. This is a very critical moment for Jeremy. He is quoted as saying "we will come to a decision as a party" which implies it will not be a free vote

I would be very surprised indeed now if Labour MPs do not have a free vote on the issue.
I hope they think carefully however before they support it as if it all goes the way of Iraq and Libya, they will be seen as learning nothing from the past.
Although I could be persuaded to support the motion myself, just and with great reservations however and distrust of the PM too.
I do think we are being misled again by another PM as to war issues, since I will never believe Cameron's main aim is not about regime change as much as anything to do with IS,as it was 2 years ago too.
Cameron's claim of 70,000 moderates in the area,is in my view as even a Conservative MP said so last week in the Commons, virtually pie in the sky.

[bots]

I would be very surprised indeed now if Labour MPs do not have a free vote on the issue.
I hope they think carefully however before they support it as if it all goes the way of Iraq and Libya, they will be seen as learning nothing from the past.
Although I could be persuaded to support the motion myself, just and with great reservations however and distrust of the PM too.
I do think we are being misled again by another PM as to war issues, since I will never believe Cameron's main aim is not about regime change as much as anything to do with IS,as it was 2 years ago too.
Cameron's claim of 70,000 moderates in the area,is in my view as even a Conservative MP said so last week in the Commons, virtually pie in the sky.

Its interesting for sure. He is saying that the No votes must be heard, but, each constituency voted for their MP, so allowing that MP a free vote is the most reflective of communities. Its all well and good saying No should be heard, but if it is being elevated beyond what the public reflect, it can only lead to problems down the line.

[Vicky.]

I really didn't think that labour could find someone worse than David Millband to represent them. i was wrong.

David Milliband would have been perfect IMO. The issue was Ed was chosen instead..

[Crimson Dynamo]

Even The DM newspaper yesterday said the DC had NOT made a case for bombing Syria!

[Kizzy]

MOST of them are NOT Corbyn's MP's - as will eventually become transparent come 'the ides of March' and that 'Et tu Brute?' moment which we are all looking forward to.

Yes that's what all Labour voters want their MP dancing to Camerons tune. :conf:

[DemolitionRed]

Cameron is under no obligation to seek a vote from parliament. He could find himself facing political retribution if he didn't, but its not a legal requirement. In my opinion this is one thing Cameron is getting right.

Back in 2013 after the chemical attack in Damascus, Obama asked Britain to get involved in air strikes in Syria. Cameron took this vote to parliament just like he's doing now and parliament voted an almost unanimous 'NO'

[arista]

Corbyn: Only I Will Decide On Syria Vote

Former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna tells Sky News he will back military action even if it means defying his party.

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/29/432836/default/v3/corbyn-on-andrew-marr-1-736x414.jpg
this morning on BBC Marr

http://news.sky.com/story/1596477/corbyn-only-i-will-decide-on-syria-vote

[arista]

Even The DM newspaper yesterday said the DC had NOT made a case for bombing Syria!


Yes because that 70,000 number of troops
are Not United.

so that number is well wrong

[Kazanne]

Why don't all of us that want to bomb ISIS,just all get in safety bunkers and let Corbyn and his followers nip and have a friendly word with ISIS,have a cuppa and problem solved !!! I think not these vermin need wiping out,treat like for like.

[arista]

But there are to many to Kill

[DemolitionRed]

Why don't all of us that want to bomb ISIS,just all get in safety bunkers and let Corbyn and his followers nip and have a friendly word with ISIS,have a cuppa and problem solved !!! I think not these vermin need wiping out,treat like for like.

Because there are presently up to 80 different terrorists groups in Syria and ISIS are spread out and hidden amongst them. Even if we turn Syria into dust, ISIS will sit it out in Saudi, their protectorate and resurface at some point in the future.

The bombing of Syria is exactly what ISIS have been enticing us to do.

[kirklancaster]

Why don't all of us that want to bomb ISIS,just all get in safety bunkers and let Corbyn and his followers nip and have a friendly word with ISIS,have a cuppa and problem solved !!! I think not these vermin need wiping out,treat like for like.

I agree Kaz - but what should we do about ISIS?:laugh:

[joeysteele]

Because there are presently up to 80 different terrorists groups in Syria and ISIS are spread out and hidden amongst them. Even if we turn Syria into dust, ISIS will sit it out in Saudi, their protectorate and resurface at some point in the future.

The bombing of Syria is exactly what ISIS have been enticing us to do.

It is indeed,I have thought long and hard on this issue this weekend and although depending on what the PM says this week, and he needs to say a whole load more that is sounder and better than he did last week, while I could support the motion, I am heading fast to the thinking maybe we should not get involved but give support other ways.

I want to see this scum exterminated from the earth as much as anyone else but am not hearing much that is convincing from the PM.
His ridiculous statement of 70,000 moderates in the area fighting IS almost comes into a par with Blair's 45 minute nonsense.

Even Camerons own MPs scoffed at that statement from him.
Easy to be a armchair critic of Corbyn and those against the action, most that are will not be the ones sent to probably lose their lives again in the Middle east however.

[kirklancaster]

Yes that's what all Labour voters want their MP dancing to Camerons tune. :conf:

Not at all - But I'd wager a guess that MOST Labour voters WOULD like their so-called party leader to at LEAST be singing from the SAME HYMN SHEET.

[kirklancaster]

Corbyn: Only I Will Decide On Syria Vote

Former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna tells Sky News he will back military action even if it means defying his party.

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/29/432836/default/v3/corbyn-on-andrew-marr-1-736x414.jpg
this morning on BBC Marr

http://news.sky.com/story/1596477/corbyn-only-i-will-decide-on-syria-vote

What did I say - the ides of March approaches - 'Et Tu Chuka?'

[Kazanne]

I agree Kaz - but what should we do about ISIS?:laugh:

Put arsenic in theirs:hehe:

[joeysteele]

Corbyn: Only I Will Decide On Syria Vote

Former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna tells Sky News he will back military action even if it means defying his party.

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/29/432836/default/v3/corbyn-on-andrew-marr-1-736x414.jpg
this morning on BBC Marr

http://news.sky.com/story/1596477/corbyn-only-i-will-decide-on-syria-vote

Well there's a surprise,I think not.
Chukka Umunna will back the action, wow, this from the man who couldn't face media intrusion into his time as a Labour leadership contender,and ran off from it.
Where has he found courage from all of a sudden.

Oh of course, it isn't him that would have to go there.

[Kizzy]

Not at all - But I'd wager a guess that MOST Labour voters WOULD like their so-called party leader to at LEAST be singing from the SAME HYMN SHEET.

That wasn't the point I raised... I asked why Cameron was attempting to cajole Labour MPs.

It is a VERY important issue, he has his personal principles and is as entitled to them as every one of his MPs.
There is nothing in either parties manifesto about bombing so where has this hymn sheet come from?
If the ayes have it then so be it, if not we stay put.

[bots]

Cameron is attempting to get a consensus, I can't disagree with that approach. There is a good reason for asking how everyone is voting as he stated he would not hold a vote if it looked like being no as that would give propaganda to ISIS. Really, the guy can't win. He could say **** it, and bomb syria without any permission. I applaud him for this approach if for nothing else.

[Kizzy]

Cameron is attempting to get a consensus, I can't disagree with that approach. There is a good reason for asking how everyone is voting as he stated he would not hold a vote if it looked like being no as that would give propaganda to ISIS. Really, the guy can't win. He could say **** it, and bomb syria without any permission. I applaud him for this approach if for nothing else.

You have to ask yourself how democratic that is only voting on a foregone conclusion :/

[bots]

You have to ask yourself how democratic that is only voting on a foregone conclusion :/

its not a foregone conclusion though is it. If the consensus is No, we won't be taking action in Syria

[Kizzy]

Only one way to find out for certain, hold the vote.

[smudgie]

No problem with Mr Corbyn no voting for the bombing, that is his personal choice.
However the rest should be free to vote with their conscience.

[Kizzy]

No problem with Mr Corbyn no voting for the bombing, that is his personal choice.
However the rest should be free to vote with their conscience.

Yes without CCHQ interference.

[bots]

Only one way to find out for certain, hold the vote.

So you would like ISIS to use that no vote as an indication of British support for ISIS? because thats what they will do, hence the decision not to vote if the outcome will be No.

The status quo at the moment is we dont attack Syria, nothing is needed unless that decision is to change

[Kizzy]

So you would like ISIS to use that no vote as an indication of British support for ISIS? because thats what they will do, hence the decision not to vote if the outcome will be No.

The status quo at the moment is we dont attack Syria, nothing is needed unless that decision is to change

Is that what dave told you? Come on let's not be led by the nose.

We have a house of commons to vote democratically on all issues big and small.
Suggesting that ISIS are on pins anticipating the outcome of a British vote before deciding their next move is ridiculous.

[bots]

Is that what dave told you? Come on let's not be led by the nose.

We have a house of commons to vote democratically on all issues big and small.
Suggesting that ISIS are on pins anticipating the outcome of a British vote before deciding their next move is ridiculous.

it really doesn't seem to matter a damn what Cameron does, you will pick fault. He should just go and blow the ****ers up, give you something to moan about properly

[Kizzy]

'It is odd listening to our politicians talking portentously about the heavy responsibility they bear in deciding whether Britain should “go to war” in Syria. The sad fact of the matter is that, to all intents and purposes, Britain is already at war in both Syria and Iraq and has been for at least a year.

The current intense debate about whether to step up our involvement by joining the US and France in the aerial bombing of Islamic State terrorists in Syria has been fuelled by the dreadful Paris attacks and fears that something similar may happen here. But as they grapple with their consciences, some of the leading parliamentary participants in this debate exhibit an inexplicable forgetfulness about what they have previously agreed and an inability to recognise what is actually happening, almost daily, in the world beyond Westminster.

Following hard on a series of Isis advances and atrocities, MPs decided on 26 September last year, without much fuss, to support British air strikes in Iraq. All the main party leaderships concurred. The vote in favour was overwhelming – 524-43. Since then, RAF Tornados have conducted hundreds of attacks and sorties.'

Hey it's not just me :/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/observer-view-isis-syria-british-military-action

[DemolitionRed]

This whole thing is a terrible mess. The more I read, the more suspicious I get and the more suspicious I get, the more depressed I feel about this whole sorry state of affairs.

I think I just need to turn off the news and stop reading about this stuff because for those of us who desperately don't want this, there's absolutely nothing we can do.

[joeysteele]

No problem with Mr Corbyn no voting for the bombing, that is his personal choice.
However the rest should be free to vote with their conscience.

Except if Corbyn gives Labour MPs a free vote which I both think and hope he will, the Conservative MPs will not have a free vote and will be threatened with losing the party whip if they vote against the motion.

No way however will David Cameron give his MPs a free vote at all to vote as their conscience may tell them to.

I think every MP of any party should be give the free vote status and not have any MP forced to vote,(under any threats whatsoever of losing privileges), a way they would prefer not to, whether they be leaders of Parties, cabinets or just backbench MPs.

[Kizzy]

Except if Corbyn gives Labour MPs a free vote which I both think and hope he will, the Conservative MPs will not have a free vote and will be threatened with losing the party whip if they vote against the motion.

No way however will David Cameron give his MPs a free vote at all to vote as their conscience may tell them to.

I think every MP of any party should be give the free vote status and not have any MP forced to vote,(under any threats whatsoever of losing privileges), a way they would prefer not to, whether they be leaders of Parties, cabinets or just backbench MPs.

Ah, that puts a different spin on things... why is the focus solely on Corbyn and whether he will allow a free vote then?
Smacks of double standards to me.

[joeysteele]

Ah, that puts a different spin on things... why is the focus solely on Corbyn and whether he will allow a free vote then?
Smacks of double standards to me.

It is beyond me, and if as Fallon said today there is no overall majority status for the motion to be passed yet.
Since the Conservatives have 329 voting strength as to MPs and have already been assured of 8 DUP votes too, then a good number of Conservative MPs must be not in favour of the action either.

As you say however, it is only Labours divisions being highlighted and talked about.
It's more than double standards it stinks to high heaven.

What is really behind it all likely is, Cameron doesn't want all the blame on him if this goes all wrong as to the action taken, he wants to be able to say 'other' parties, particularly most of Labour backed him too on it.

[Kizzy]

Bingo, he won't want to come across the warmonger he is.

[bots]

just as a point of interest, where exactly does it say that the conservatives are not allowing a free vote. Corbyn has stated that labour will vote together, is there evidence that the tories have said the same, or is this just more of the usual deflection that goes on in every single thread where Corbyn is questioned.

[joeysteele]

just as a point of interest, where exactly does it say that the conservatives are not allowing a free vote. Corbyn has stated that labour will vote together, is there evidence that the tories have said the same, or is this just more of the usual deflection that goes on in every single thread where Corbyn is questioned.

You seriously believe David Cameron will give his MPs a free vote. when he is desperate to get other parties votes.

It is at present a whip vote by the Parties unless the leader allows a free vote, the only leader under pressure to do that is Corbyn.

No one has a free vote on this issue at the present time, Cameron will be putting the motion forward and heaven help any of his MPs that dare vote against the whip too.

[Kizzy]

'The government does not yet have enough votes from MPs to back air strikes against Islamic State (IS) in Syria, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said.
He told the BBC he had been in talks with Labour MPs but added: "We've got to keep building the case".
He admitted it would be harder to get the support if Labour ordered its MPs to vote against air strikes in Syria.
Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, who opposes air strikes, said he had not decided whether to offer them a free vote.
MPs could vote next week on whether to extend UK air strikes against IS into Syria, but the government has said it will not call the vote unless it is certain to win.
Ministers need the support of enough Labour MPs to compensate for Conservative rebels who will vote against military intervention, and Mr Fallon said he had been briefing Labour MPs on the government's case'

Well it's not clear either way is it? It isn't cut and dried yet that Labour MPs will have to vote no either...At the moment it's all speculation, seems both parties have dissenters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34956795

[bots]

'The government does not yet have enough votes from MPs to back air strikes against Islamic State (IS) in Syria, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said.
He told the BBC he had been in talks with Labour MPs but added: "We've got to keep building the case".
He admitted it would be harder to get the support if Labour ordered its MPs to vote against air strikes in Syria.
Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, who opposes air strikes, said he had not decided whether to offer them a free vote.
MPs could vote next week on whether to extend UK air strikes against IS into Syria, but the government has said it will not call the vote unless it is certain to win.
Ministers need the support of enough Labour MPs to compensate for Conservative rebels who will vote against military intervention, and Mr Fallon said he had been briefing Labour MPs on the government's case'

Well it's not clear either way is it? It isn't cut and dried yet that Labour MPs will have to vote no either...At the moment it's all speculation, seems both parties have dissenters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34956795

That says to me it is a free vote on the Conservative side. That's why they need support of a number of labour MP's too. So the focus should still be on Corbyn

[Kizzy]

That says to me it is a free vote on the Conservative side. That's why they need support a number of labour MP's too. So the focus should still be on Corbyn

As joey said it's a free vote that has to be announced not the other way around, if it was a free vote from the tories we would know by now, or there would be the same speculation for dave surely?

[joeysteele]

That says to me it is a free vote on the Conservative side. That's why they need support a number of labour MP's too. So the focus should still be on Corbyn

Oh come on, of course its not, Cameron is determined to get this through any way he can.
Really you are telling us that the media would not be hammering Corbyn on the free vote scenario by constantly saying that Cameron had already given his MPs a free vote.

Cameron is well aware that over 100 Labour MPs voted against Tony Blair on the Iraq action.

It is a whip vote by the govt and the Labour party at this time.
I'd like to hope, but won't hold my breath, that when you find Corbyn gives a free vote to his MPs, if he does, and that Cameron stays with the whip vote for his.
You may just in some basic fairness give some credit to Corbyn for that move.

[bots]

As joey said it's a free vote that has to be announced not the other way around, if it was a free vote from the tories we would know by now, or there would be the same speculation for dave surely?

No, not the case. Corbyn has stated that labour will vote as one. That is not open to interpretation. The tories have not said anything about it not being a free vote, yet labour supporters in this thread still deflect on to the tories and david cameron. I've tried discussing logically, but unfortunately, I'm not getting much back.

[joeysteele]

No, not the case. Corbyn has stated that labour will vote as one. That is not open to interpretation. The tories have not said anything about it not being a free vote, yet labour supporters in this thread still deflect on to the tories and david cameron. I've tried discussing logically, but unfortunately, I'm not getting much back.

It isn't a free vote from the Conservatives at all and Kizzy is right, it would have be announced it was a free vote in advance.

Similar to what govts do when holding a vote on the death penalty,that is always a free vote.
This one is most certainly not from the govt benches.
The point is that Cameron is sounding out his MPs before presenting the motion,if he cannot get them on board then there will be no vote at all.

Show us anywhere that David Cameron has said it is a free vote,then your argument has substance.
All votes are whip votes unless govts state otherwise or a Party takes the route of a free vote as Labour may well do..

[Kizzy]

No, not the case. Corbyn has stated that labour will vote as one. That is not open to interpretation. The tories have not said anything about it not being a free vote, yet labour supporters in this thread still deflect on to the tories and david cameron. I've tried discussing logically, but unfortunately, I'm not getting much back.

You've got plenty back... It's just not what you want to hear.

[MTVN]

Thankfully the Labour moderates are going to support the government on this and it will be a humiliating defeat for Corbyn and his narrow-minded, factional ideologues

[smudgie]

Surely though it is better for Mr. Corbyn to allow a free vote, rather than have any of his party voting against him or just abstaining, especially any of the shadow cabinet:shrug:
Or will it look bad either way?

[Kizzy]

Thankfully the Labour moderates are going to support the government on this and it will be a humiliating defeat for Corbyn and his narrow-minded, factional ideologues

'Moderates' how can that term ever be applied to anyone who votes to go to war?...
If the govt were so confident in the success of their bloodlust vote then it would be cut and dried by now, but baby it ain't over till it's over.

[MTVN]

Because the moderates are sensible and reasonable MPs willing to cooperate with the opposition when its in the country's interests. Compare that to Mr Corbyn and friends who have always and will always hold the view that whatever the Tories do is bad and whatever the West does is wrong. They have a default position on issues like this which is depressingly predictable.

[Kizzy]

Because the moderates are sensible and reasonable MPs willing to cooperate with the opposition when its in the country's interests. Compare that to Mr Corbyn and friends who have always and will always hold the view that whatever the Tories do is bad and whatever the West does is wrong. They have a default position on issues like this which is depressingly predictable.

Well that is very much a matter of personal principle isn't it?
Who are you referring to here, it's no secret that Corbyns politics differ wildly to those of the tories, but to suggest he is anti west is odd.
MPs on both sides are acutely aware of how pivotal this vote is, suggesting it's some tit for tat contrary act to vote against airstrikes is a rather flippant remark considering the magnitude of the subject matter.

[MTVN]

Its not odd, its a summation of his entire political career

[Kizzy]

Maybe the idea of hope over fear is too much for some?...
https://storage.googleapis.com/sumadvice-frontend.appspot.com/static/art/CYOe.jpg

[MTVN]

Don't you quote Orwell at me

[Kizzy]

Don't you quote Orwell at me

Hehe, you can argue with me but you can't argue with Orwell :)

[Vicky.]

It should ALWAYS be a free vote, otherwise what on earth is the point of a vote :bored:

[joeysteele]

It should ALWAYS be a free vote, otherwise what on earth is the point of a vote :bored:

I agree,and I consider myself a moderate in all things as best as I can be but if I were an MP,I really would be wrestling with heart and mind very hard both ways on this issue.
I certainly wouldn't class voting to go to war again, after our previous disasters since 2003, as a moderate action at all

The thing I would never condemn was anyone being so principled against war again, after the mistakes made before,as to them then deciding not to vote for same, no matter what positions they hold in their political Parties.
I think everyone, MP or otherwise should always as to war or conflict, have the full freedom to vote from their conscience and not as forced to.

The PM and all cabinet Ministers are potential in the end backbenchers anyway,just as backbenchers are potential cabinet Ministers too.
Often it is most of the backbench MPs who talk the most sense too.

[bots]

'Moderates' how can that term ever be applied to anyone who votes to go to war?...
If the govt were so confident in the success of their bloodlust vote then it would be cut and dried by now, but baby it ain't over till it's over.

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

[DemolitionRed]

Thankfully the Labour moderates are going to support the government on this and it will be a humiliating defeat for Corbyn and his narrow-minded, factional ideologues

What about the nation? Are the high percent of British citizens who don't support the government stance on this also narrow minded too? Are 18 towns and cities across the country holding mass protests narrow minded?

It feels as though the country as a whole are against this, so if the vote comes out as a firm 'yes', Corbyn won't look a fool and certainly won't be humiliated. If anything this will lead to more Labour support in this country.

[joeysteele]

What about the nation? Are the high percent of British citizens who don't support the government stance on this also narrow minded too? Are 18 towns and cities across the country holding mass protests narrow minded?

It feels as though the country as a whole are against this, so if the vote comes out as a firm 'yes', Corbyn won't look a fool and certainly won't be humiliated. If anything this will lead to more Labour support in this country.

No they are not narrow minded at all,no way.
Good post again DR.

[DemolitionRed]

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

If you believe our tiny intervention in Syria is going to help stop ISIS then you rock on with those thoughts but don't for one moment believe you're in the majority.

Edited to say: The more we get involved, the more danger there is of terrorists atrocities happening on our own turf.

Edited to change 'your' into 'you're!!

[bots]

If you believe our tiny intervention in Syria is going to help stop ISIS then you rock on with those thoughts but don't for one moment believe your in the majority.

Actually, I know I am in the majority. If you look at the number of pacifists in any country they are by far the minority.

[DemolitionRed]

You're wrong. I work in a place that is full of Conservative supporters; a place I rarely debate politics for the simple fact that I'm hugely outnumbered. They all appear to be shaking their heads atm about Cameron's absurdity in this. The right wing papers they read seem to be influencing these thoughts or at least making them question what the hell we are doing. The main chit chat in the office coffee shop is about what this could do to the Conservative party in the long term.

My world is just a tiny fraction of society but what I'm seeing is what's going on across the length and breadth of Britain right now.

[bots]

You're wrong. I work in a place that is full of Conservative supporters; a place I rarely debate politics for the simple fact that I'm hugely outnumbered. They all appear to be shaking their heads atm about Cameron's absurdity in this. The right wing papers they read seem to be influencing these thoughts or at least making them question what the hell we are doing. The main chit chat in the office coffee shop is about what this could do to the Conservative party in the long term.

My world is just a tiny fraction of society but what I'm seeing is what's going on across the length and breadth of Britain right now.

I am not wrong, but carry on believing as you do. A couple of vocal people on a forum unwilling to see reality does not make a majority in any language.

[DemolitionRed]

I am not wrong, but carry on believing as you do. A couple of vocal people on a forum unwilling to see reality does not make a majority in any language.

Of course not but with Google at our fingertips we can easily enough see how the country feel about this.

Out of interest, what do you think we can achieve by bombing Syria?

[bots]

Of course not but with Google at our fingertips we can easily enough see how the country feel about this.

Out of interest, what do you think we can achieve by bombing Syria?

My ideal approach would be for MP's to have a free vote from all parties, I've said this several times already. That provides the best indication of a consensus. Forcing a party to vote for 1 thing or another makes a mockery of having a vote at all.

I've also stated what can be achieved by bombing many times already too. I don't have time, or feel the need to repeat myself

[kirklancaster]

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

Brilliantly put again BOTS - Wish I'd said this. :blush:

[kirklancaster]

Thankfully the Labour moderates are going to support the government on this and it will be a humiliating defeat for Corbyn and his narrow-minded, factional ideologues

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[joeysteele]

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.


Really.
How odd, from the other angle, I have spoken to some of those I know and don't know who had their Sons and Daughters sent to Iraq and Afghanistan who are dreading the thought of any of then going again to the Middle east or indeed anyone elses Sons and Daughters too.
Especially on a policy of what appears to be at best patchwork as outlined by the PM last week.
I also have 3 much older brothers all who served in the Forces, who also are dead against any more of our action in the Middle East, they believe, the Middle east is already riddled with our failed attempts to sort things out for the better.

My mind is now being swung against action and after the preposterous claim by the PM that there are 70,000 moderates in Syria waiting to be helped by us, which even his own MPs dispute and see and as pie in the sky, I think this may well be another big mistake.

[Northern Monkey]

What about the nation? Are the high percent of British citizens who don't support the government stance on this also narrow minded too? Are 18 towns and cities across the country holding mass protests narrow minded?

It feels as though the country as a whole are against this, so if the vote comes out as a firm 'yes', Corbyn won't look a fool and certainly won't be humiliated. If anything this will lead to more Labour support in this country.

This is just wrong.A quite recent YouGov poll showed that the majority of British people are in favour of airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

From YouGov


"A majority of the British public support intervention in Syria with air power, special forces and advisors. But voters are still waiting for 'straight talk' on military action from both the Government and Opposition."

"This could even pass muster. In-depth polling for the YouGov Centre at Cambridge University, conducted just before Russia's latest intervention and now published here, shows firm support from British voters for upping the military ante. Nearly two thirds expressed support for UK fighter jets being used to strike Isil targets in Syria, with stronger support still for doing so with drones. There is little appetite for deploying regular troops but roughly half of respondents backed the use of UK special forces to fight Islamist forces on the ground in Syria and almost 60 per cent supported sending UK military personnel to advise Western-backed rebels there."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/10/06/Voters_back_Syrian_action/

On top of that.A YouGov representative was on the Sunday Politics and confirmed that although Labour members are unsurprisingly on Corbyns side the majority of Labour voters support airstrikes in Syria.

[bots]

Really.
How odd, from the other angle, I have spoken to some of those I know and don't know ho had their Sons and Daughters sent to Iraq and Afghanistan who are dreading the thought of any of then going again to the Middle east or indeed anyone elses Sons and Daughters too.
Especially on a policy of what appears to be at best patchwork as outlined by the PM last week.
I also have 3 much older brothers all who served in the Forces, who also are dead against any more of our action in the Middle East, they believe, the Middle east is already riddled with our failed attempts to sort things out for the better.

My mind is now being swung against action and after the preposterous claim by the PM that there are 70,000 moderates in Syria waiting to be helped by us, which even his own MPs dispute and see and as pie in the sky, I think this may well be another big mistake.

I sympathise strongly with those families who have lost loved ones in times of conflict, but the majority of those lost in such conflicts are ground troops. The PM is seeking approval for air strikes, its a completely different scenario

The strategy put forward by the PM so far with respect to ground troops is an evolving scenario. That is not our fight, we are relying on an international coalition. Some come from syrian rebels, some come from other arab soldiers. No-one is suggesting the UK send ground troops at this stage it is for arab countries to fill that role, So questioning that part at this stage is premature because it requires international cooperation.

This vote is on the UK's contribution ... the potential to bomb IS in Syria, nothing more, nothing less

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/27/432556/default/v1/cegrab-20151127-141013-142-1-736x414.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/1595691/where-shadow-cabinet-stands-on-syria-airstrikes

[joeysteele]

I sympathise strongly with those families who have lost loved ones in times of conflict, but the majority of those lost in such conflicts are ground troops. The PM is seeking approval for air strikes, its a completely different scenario

The strategy put forward by the PM so far with respect to ground troops is an evolving scenario. That is not our fight, we are relying on an international coalition. Some come from syrian rebels, some come from other arab soldiers. No-one is suggesting the UK send ground troops at this stage it is for arab countries to fill that role, So questioning that part at this stage is premature because it requires international cooperation.

This vote is on the UK's contribution ... the potential to bomb IS in Syria, nothing more, nothing less

Have you seen the motion yet as no one else has with respect, lets see what other options are disguised in the motion when it comes forward.
Do you not think pilots bombing can get shot down,captured and killed too.

[bots]

Have you seen the motion yet as no one else has with respect, lets see what other options are disguised in the motion when it comes forward.
Do you not think pilots bombing can get shot down,captured and killed too.

Joey,the chances of losses as a result of air strikes is much much less than putting troops in on the ground.

The vote is about air strikes, not about ground troops.

[DemolitionRed]

NorthernMonkey The pole was done back in August and there has been a huge turn around since then.

All of Yougove's opinion poles is contradictory because they can only be taken by people who have access to the internet. Online samples can never be an accurate analysis.

This is also a site which showed huge bias towards the Conservatives in the general election.

[Northern Monkey]

NorthernMonkey The pole was done back in August and there has been a huge turn around since then.

All of Yougove's opinion poles is contradictory because they can only be taken by people who have access to the internet. Online samples can never be an accurate analysis.

This is also a site which showed huge bias towards the Conservatives in the general election.

And since then we've had the Paris attacks.Public opinion won't have shifted that much.Infact it is more likely to be more in favour of airstrikes.

[Kizzy]

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

'Moderate' has become synonymous with 'agreeing with conservative thinking, anything else is 'militant'.

[Kizzy]

Actually, I know I am in the majority. If you look at the number of pacifists in any country they are by far the minority.

It's not the tub thumpers in the countries that have the vote is it?
If there was so much support then why hasn't the vote been cast and the MPs voting as their constituents would want..

[bots]

'Moderate' has become synonymous with 'agreeing with conservative thinking, anything else is 'militant'.

Absolute rubbish

[Kizzy]

Absolute rubbish

As is your claim that the electorate support airstrikes imo.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/113064

Ian Mearns MP ✔ @IanMearnsMP
@BBCPolitics @BBCNews Why is dissent in the Labour Party more important than dissent in the Tory Party Where has Cameron's majority gone?

Ian Mearns MP ✔ @IanMearnsMP
Why can't I stop thinking - the stance being taken, in supporting Cameron on Syria, by some in the PLP has nothing to do with Syria at all?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/30/corbyn-plp-syria-free-vote-mps-a-free-vote-on-syria-would-give-cameron-victory-on-a-plate-politics-live

[MTVN]

A clear majority of British people support RAF air strikes on Syria – and across all of Europe people say their country should being doing more to combat ISIS within Iraq and Syria

New research for the YouGov-Cambridge symposium on Syria and the EU confirms strong and continued public support for RAF air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

Public support, now at 59% to 20% in opposition, has been steady throughout 2015, even in the wake of the Paris attacks – suggesting the public have settled on a position, with support unlikely to deteriorate in the near future.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/25/strong-and-continued-support-raf-air-strikes-syria/

[user104658]

Brilliantly put again BOTS - Wish I'd said this. :blush:

I don't think you're in a position to be commenting on what "moderate people" do or don't understand, Kirk. You're not trying to imply that you are one, are you? I mean, I know I'm not either, but I fully accept that.

[joeysteele]

I am also very hesitant now to put much faith in opinion polls especially after the General election.
Polls can be wrong or right depending on how they are done, phone polls, online polls or face to face polls.

However it is not polls that will or should decide this, it is peoples hard views ad fears on the issue.
If we adopted polling as a guide to how MPs should vote, we would now have the death penalty back in the UK for sure.

On war, as with Iraq, public opinion can very rapidly change depending on how bad or good things go.
So I put very little faith on snap polling.

[Kizzy]

A clear majority of British people support RAF air strikes on Syria – and across all of Europe people say their country should being doing more to combat ISIS within Iraq and Syria

New research for the YouGov-Cambridge symposium on Syria and the EU confirms strong and continued public support for RAF air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

Public support, now at 59% to 20% in opposition, has been steady throughout 2015, even in the wake of the Paris attacks – suggesting the public have settled on a position, with support unlikely to deteriorate in the near future.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/25/strong-and-continued-support-raf-air-strikes-syria/

Look at the sample size, 1659
of those only 617 were under 40, 751 polled were from the south and 763 voted conservative or UKIP at the last election.
No SDP voters were polled.

[Fieldwork: 23rd - 24th November 2015]

Hoodwinking the nation? not bad for a days work.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lkwxs2wst7/InternalResults_151124_Syria_w.pdf

[MTVN]

If 763 of a 1659 sample voted Tory or Ukip then that is representative of the electorate..

[MTVN]

Plus those results show that 52% of those who voted Labour back strikes against 26% opposing

[joeysteele]

Look at the sample size, 1659
of those only 617 were under 40, 751 polled were from the south and 763 voted conservative or UKIP at the last election.

[Fieldwork: 23rd - 24th November 2015]

Hoodwinking the nation? not bad for a days work.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lkwxs2wst7/InternalResults_151124_Syria_w.pdf

As I said,I now put little faith in polling and again as to war, public opinion is extremely volatile anyway and you could do a poll after the vote which could then say we are wrong to go back.
I would also treat very sceptically the accuracy of UK opinion generally in a poll that has very nearly half of its respondents from the affluent South anyway.

[Kizzy]

If 763 of a 1659 sample voted Tory or Ukip then that is representative of the electorate..

I highly doubt that, what of the SNP, Plaid or Green voters where were they represented?

[Kizzy]

Plus those results show that 52% of those who voted Labour back strikes against 26% opposing

And 22% undecided as nobody can predict it is truly in the countrys best interest as the PM cannot make a viable case for it.

[MTVN]

I highly doubt that, what of the SNP, Plaid or Green voters where were they represented?

763 of 1659 is 46%. In the 2015 election the Conservatives had 36.9% of the vote and Ukip had 12.6% equalling a combined vote share of 49.5%.

Therefore it is representative of the electorate and if you really want to be picky than Tory and Ukip voters are very slightly under-represented

And remove the Con/Lib/Lab/Ukip voters from that sample and there are 414 surveyed unaccounted for, that will include supporters of the other parties that you mention

[MTVN]

Why is there always some conspiracy against Labour lol. Yougov are an independent polling company with incredibly rigorous standards when it comes to sample sizes and representation, they are hardly going to engineer massively skewed results when it is of no benefit to them whatsoever

[Kizzy]

763 of 1659 is 46%. In the 2015 election the Conservatives had 36.9% of the vote and Ukip had 12.6% equalling a combined vote share of 49.5%.

Therefore it is representative of the electorate and if you really want to be picky than Tory and Ukip voters are very slightly under-represented

And remove the Con/Lib/Lab/Ukip voters from that sample and there are 414 surveyed unaccounted for, that will include supporters of the other parties that you mention

The samples are weighted.

I make it 315 unaccounted for.

[Kizzy]

Why is there always some conspiracy against Labour lol. Yougov are an independent polling company with incredibly rigorous standards when it comes to sample sizes and representation, they are hardly going to engineer massively skewed results when it is of no benefit to them whatsoever

Who mentioned Labour?
I'm saying I don't think the stratified sample size is large enough to be representative lol.

[kirklancaster]

I don't think you're in a position to be commenting on what "moderate people" do or don't understand, Kirk. You're not trying to imply that you are one, are you? I mean, I know I'm not either, but I fully accept that.

Uh??? :laugh: This comment is scraping the bottom of the 'Ludicrous' barrel T.S to be honest.

Following your non-logic, no white man should have an opinion on black politics in South Africa, and no Christian should hold views on the ideologies of Islamic extremists, and neither you nor LT and any other Atheists should ever comment on Religious threads again.

What is more inane, is the fact that the post I was admiring and commenting on, was a direct response to a statement in a post by Kizzy which I deemed as ridiculous as BitOnTheSlide did. Here it is:

Originally Posted by Kizzy View Post
'Moderate' has become synonymous with 'agreeing with conservative thinking, anything else is 'militant'.

But I do not witness you telling Kizzy that she is NOT "in a position to be commenting on what 'moderate people' do or don't understand"

OH !!!! Wait, I UNDERSTAND now - Kizzy IS A MODERATE in your esteemed opinion so SHE can have an opinion. Oh, that's alright then.

Before I run off to find myself a wet kipper with which to whack my bare backside with while crying "Kirk's a naughty boy", I will reproduce the actual post which I applauded, and this, taken into context with Kizzy's statement above may illustrate why I not only applauded BitOnTheSlide's response, but do not myself have to be a 'moderate' to qualify to do so:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide View Post
"
"So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it."

Great response by BitOnTheSlide isn't it?

[user104658]

She isn't entirely wrong though kirk, there IS an idea creeping in that anyone who doesn't agree with the government-default stance on terrorism and war-waging has a strange, out there, or bizarre ideology.

Your clapping response indicated that you felt bots was correct and that you know it to be correct because you yourself are able to confirm as much because you are one of those moderate people who wants to "stop their families from being murdered" (which is, ironically, hyperbole, extreme, scaremongering, and not at all moderate).

But you are not moderate, kirk, I've never really seen you post anything that would suggest such... So you're not one of those people or families.

If the clapping / agreement response wasn't supposed to suggest that, then it really needed more than the clapping emote response. Then again, in my own opinion, ANY post needs more than that inane response, but I've covered that in the past.

[Kizzy]

I do not witness you telling Kizzy that she is NOT "in a position to be commenting on what 'moderate people' do or don't understand"

Oh don't worry, I get this.... A lot.

[Kizzy]

She isn't entirely wrong though kirk, there IS an idea creeping in that anyone who doesn't agree with the government-default stance on terrorism and war-waging has a strange, out there, or bizarre ideology.

Your clapping response indicated that you felt bots was correct and that you know it to be correct because you yourself are able to confirm as much because you are one of those moderate people who wants to "stop their families from being murdered" (which is, ironically, hyperbole, extreme, scaremongering, and not at all moderate).

But you are not moderate, kirk, I've never really seen you post anything that would suggest such... So you're not one of those people or families.

If the clapping / agreement response wasn't supposed to suggest that, then it really needed more than the clapping emote response. Then again, in my own opinion, ANY post needs more than that inane response, but I've covered that in the past.

:clap1:


And thankyou for that, that is exactly what I meant, too often lately we have seen this word 'moderate' bandied around in the context that they are in alignment with the current conservative ethos be it to do with ISIS, replacing trident or junior doctors.
Anyone opposed is a militant, loony,bleeding heart, hand wringing red!

[Northern Monkey]

That's gonna happen as compared with Corbyn UKIP are moderate....

[bots]

:clap1:


And thankyou for that, that is exactly what I meant, too often lately we have seen this word 'moderate' bandied around in the context that they are in alignment with the current conservative ethos be it to do with ISIS, replacing trident or junior doctors.
Anyone opposed is a militant, loony,bleeding heart, hand wringing red!

People in the Labour party are moderate, people in the Labour party are extremist (like Corbyn) There are also both sets in the Conservative party. Like it or not, the majority of the UK public fit in to the moderate category. They will have views that align with Conservatives and they will have views that align with Labour... All moderate

It is a fact that well known moderates within both parties support taking action in Syria

[arista]

I hope by 7PM Ch4HD News
can tell us its a Free Vote or His Vote Alone.

[Kizzy]

People in the Labour party are moderate, people in the Labour party are extremist (like Corbyn) There are also both sets in the Conservative party. Like it or not, the majority of the UK public fit in to the moderate category. They will have views that align with Conservatives and they will have views that align with Labour... All moderate

It is a fact that well known moderates within both parties support taking action in Syria

Well yes that's stating the obvious, doesn't take away from my point that the govt view is 9 times out of 10 touted as the moderate line and anything else is militant lunacy.

[bots]

Labour MPs 'to get free vote on Syria'

Jeremy Corbyn is to grant Labour MPs a free vote on extending UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State into Syria, the BBC understands.
But the Labour leader is expected to want his party to take a position of opposition to military action.
Mr Corbyn has been meeting his shadow cabinet team, many of whom are likely to support air strikes.
It comes as David Cameron continues to try to build support for the extension of strikes from Iraq to Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024

[Kizzy]

It is a matter of conscience, however I say both parties should have a free vote or neither.

I think it's a mistake.

[Kizzy]

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn, issued Friday 27th November, has shown that 75 per cent of Labour party members who have responded oppose UK bombing in Syria.

107,875 responses were received of which 64,771 were confirmed as full individual Labour Party members. The remainder included affiliated supporters and registered supporters.

Random sampling, of full individual Labour Party members who responded to the email, has shown:

75 per cent are against UK bombing in Syria

13 per cent are for UK bombing in Syria

11 per cent are undecided on the issue.'

These stats seem at odds with the Labour voters in the yougov poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/30/corbyn-plp-syria-free-vote-mps-a-free-vote-on-syria-would-give-cameron-victory-on-a-plate-politics-live#block-565c57cce4b0cf03a46244a1

[arista]

A Free Vote
makes sense.

[Kizzy]

iain watsonVerified account
‏@iainjwatson
But told 'confusion' at shadow cabinet now over whether free vote can be accompanied by a statement saying party as a whole opposes bombing

[Northern Monkey]

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn, issued Friday 27th November, has shown that 75 per cent of Labour party members who have responded oppose UK bombing in Syria.

107,875 responses were received of which 64,771 were confirmed as full individual Labour Party members. The remainder included affiliated supporters and registered supporters.

Random sampling, of full individual Labour Party members who responded to the email, has shown:

75 per cent are against UK bombing in Syria

13 per cent are for UK bombing in Syria

11 per cent are undecided on the issue.'

These stats seem at odds with the Labour voters in the yougov poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/30/corbyn-plp-syria-free-vote-mps-a-free-vote-on-syria-would-give-cameron-victory-on-a-plate-politics-live#block-565c57cce4b0cf03a46244a1Members being the operative word.The people who put Corbyn in power.The 'moderate' Labour voters however are in favour of airstrikes.

[Kizzy]

Members being the operative word.The people who put Corbyn in power.The 'moderate' Labour voters however are in favour of airstrikes.

And the 75% are what?

[MTVN]

iain watsonVerified account
‏@iainjwatson
But told 'confusion' at shadow cabinet now over whether free vote can be accompanied by a statement saying party as a whole opposes bombing

Yes that seems fairly contradictory

[Northern Monkey]

And the 75% are what?
Corbynisters

[kirklancaster]

Members being the operative word.The people who put Corbyn in power.The 'moderate' Labour voters however are in favour of airstrikes.

I'm suprised Corbyn hasn't proposed bombing the UK instead. :laugh:

[arista]

SkyNewsHD
just said they get a free vote
but his cabinet must not talk about it?

[joeysteele]

Nothing contradictory at all, he has given a free vote, full credit to him for that and also the request for a the length of the debate on same too.

He is right, the Labour movement,Unions and membership are against action overall.
Indeed so are the Parliamentary MPs, it is expected up to 80 'could', not 'will', vote for action that still leaves 150 Labour MPs opposed to action.

How interesting it would be if Cameron now gave a free vote to his MPs,if he dared to that is.

[Kizzy]

Corbynisters

The 75% of Labour supporters polled are Corbynistas?

[Northern Monkey]

The 75% of Labour supporters polled are Corbynistas?

He's e-mailed Labour party members,The same people who voted for him to be leader.They are obviously going to agree with him.

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn'


Hardly an independent poll is it?

YouGov poll vs Corbyn e-mailing the people who elected him hmmm....:think:

[AnnieK]

Nothing contradictory at all, he has given a free vote, full credit to him for that and also the request for a the length of the debate on same too.et

He is right, the Labour movement,Unions and membership are against action overall.
Indeed so are the Parliamentary MPs, it is expected up to 80 'could', not 'will', vote for action that still leaves 150 Labour MPs opposed to action.

How interesting it would be if Cameron now gave a free vote to his MPs,if he dared to that is.

Agreed....he has given a free vote so hopefully will get the debate he has requested then people can vote on the outcome fully informed. Not a Corbyn fan particularly but has done what is right and fair imo

[joeysteele]

He's e-mailed Labour party members,The same people who voted for him to be leader.They are obviously going to agree with him.

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn'


Hardly an independent poll is it?

YouGov poll vs Corbyn e-mailing the people who elected him hmmm....:think:

Why should it be an independent poll, he wanted the views of the 'Labour' movement to clarify what they preferred as party policy.
He got a resounding no to action.

Whoever said it was an independent poll,it was never to be intended as so, however I also know many,like myself,said it should be a free vote for Labour MPs which unlike the Conservative party he has listened to.

[Kizzy]

He's e-mailed Labour party members,The same people who voted for him to be leader.They are obviously going to agree with him.

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn'


Hardly an independent poll is it?

YouGov poll vs Corbyn e-mailing the people who elected him hmmm....:think:

Labour party members could vote for any leader... they weren't all Corbinistas.

[bots]

I think Corbyn had to make it a free vote or face mass resignations from his cabinet. While I applaud the free vote, I don't think he would have chosen that route unless forced to. It's not what he was intending a couple of days ago.

[Northern Monkey]

Labour party members could vote for any leader... they weren't all Corbinistas.

Well they obviously were.He got elected as leader by them.

[Kizzy]

Well they obviously were.He got elected as leader by them.

Yes by some of them obv... but there will have been others who voted for Burnham et al, not EVERY party member is a Corbynista :/

[Northern Monkey]

Why should it be an independent poll, he wanted the views of the 'Labour' movement to clarify what they preferred as party policy.
He got a resounding no to action.

Whoever said it was an independent poll,it was to be intended as so, however I also know many,like myself,said it should be a free vote for Labour MPs which unlike the Conservative party he has listened to.

My point was that Kizzy implied that it contradicted the YouGov poll of Labour voters(not just members).Which it does'nt.It is not a revalation that Labour members back Corbyn.The average Labour voter however is in favour of airstrikes in Syria.

[Northern Monkey]

Yes by some of them obv... but there will have been others who voted for Burnham et al, not EVERY party member is a Corbynista :/

Not every member is but most are....

[bots]

labour voter does not have a one for one correspondence with labour party member/associate/helper/hanger on/person who lives next door and paid their 30 pence admittance fee.

[joeysteele]

I think Corbyn had to make it a free vote or face mass resignations from his cabinet. While I applaud the free vote, I don't think he would have chosen that route unless forced to. It's not what he was intending a couple of days ago.

All he was intending a few days ago was the he would be voting against, which is no surprise to anyone.

What he has done in the intervening days is gather the thoughts and opinions of the Labour movement at large.
Which sent him a resounding no to action,from Labour activists ,members and the wider movement.
As I said, many like myself.also said there should be a free vote for Labour MPs.

Today he has done all that they presented to him and you are wrong with massive respect, he could have actually insisted as the likes of Diane Abbott and even the pundits were saying on the news today,that Labour follow his lead and the whip.
As was suggested by the media, this could have meant that David Cameron would not in any way have even risked a vote at all probably if that had been the case.

he had other choices and he had stated he would make his decision today which he has.

Yesterday you were championing the Conservatives and David Cameron with his/their non existent free vote for Conservative MPs.

Very sad indeed you cannot accept that this is the right move and for once now give the guy some credit for allowing his MPs at least the opportunity to vote with their consciences and not under party forced orders.

[joeysteele]

Agreed....he has given a free vote so hopefully will get the debate he has requested then people can vote on the outcome fully informed. Not a Corbyn fan particularly but has done what is right and fair imo

Well said AnnieK, nice to see a fair and reasoned reaction to his action today.

[kirklancaster]

I think Corbyn had to make it a free vote or face mass resignations from his cabinet. While I applaud the free vote, I don't think he would have chosen that route unless forced to. It's not what he was intending a couple of days ago.

My thoughts too BOTS - just another (forced) U Turn really.

[smudgie]

So, is he hedging his bets, give them a free vote at the same time letting them know they should vote no and hope for the best.:shrug:
Better outcome than whipping them and them not taking notice.
Either way, I am glad he has given a free vote...saves the day for him a wee while longer.

[Vicky.]

Can't do right for doing wrong springs to mind here :idc:

[bots]

All he was intending a few days ago was the he would be voting against, which is no surprise to anyone.

What he has done in the intervening days is gather the thoughts and opinions of the Labour movement at large.
Which sent him a resounding no to action,from Labour activists ,members and the wider movement.
As I said, many like myself.also said there should be a free vote for Labour MPs.

Today he has done all that they presented to him and you are wrong with massive respect, he could have actually insisted as the likes of Diane Abbott and even the pundits were saying on the news today,that Labour follow his lead and the whip.
As was suggested by the media, this could have meant that David Cameron would not in any way have even risked a vote at all probably if that had been the case.

he had other choices and he had stated he would make his decision today which he has.

Yesterday you were championing the Conservatives and David Cameron with his/their non existent free vote for Conservative MPs.

Very sad indeed you cannot accept that this is the right move and for once now give the guy some credit for allowing his MPs at least the opportunity to vote with their consciences and not under party forced orders.

Why should I give Corbyn any credit, I detest the man, he is an idiot, and a dangerous idiot at that.

I applauded the free vote decision. I think that is the correct move, even if he was pushed into it.

[joeysteele]

Why should I give Corbyn any credit, I detest the man, he is an idiot, and a dangerous idiot at that.

I applauded the free vote decision. I think that is the correct move, even if he was pushed into it.

Well there you go, no point in engaging in any further discussion then with you.
No free vote for the Conservative MPs from their leader and a free vote given by the leader for the Labour ones.
Sometimes we have to give credit to anyone who does the right thing, no matter what we think of them personally.
Clearly not your thing.

[joeysteele]

Can't do right for doing wrong springs to mind here :idc:

Indeed it is, you are spot on again Vicky.

[bots]

Well there you go, no point in engaging in any further discussion then with you.
No free vote for the Conservative MPs from their leader and a free vote given by the leader for the Labour ones.
Sometimes we have to give credit to anyone who does the right thing, no matter what we think of them personally.
Clearly not your thing.

In what universe did I not say TWICE that I applauded the decision ... this is some sort of joke. You give Cameron zero credit for anything, always deflecting on the the Tories any time anything is questioned about Corbyn or labour, and you have the audacity to say that to me? Enough. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

[DemolitionRed]

Can't do right for doing wrong springs to mind here :idc:

If we couldn't laugh about it we'd be miserable ;)

[joeysteele]

In what universe did I not say TWICE that I applauded the decision ... this is some sort of joke. You give Cameron zero credit for anything, always deflecting on the the Tories any time anything is questioned about Corbyn or labour, and you have the audacity to say that to me? Enough. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

Read my posts, I have supported Cameron on things when I think he is right, I even opened up to being persuaded by him on this issue, had he given his MPs a free vote too, then I would have been praising that too.

I don't like him politically, I don't trust him and would never electorally support his party under him but he doesn't get everything wrong and I said at the start of this issue on other threads, that he should get the support he needs.
So sorry you are wrong again and do me a disservice,whereas you admit you hate Corbyn and will never give him credit for anything.

I have no time for Cameron politically but many Conservatives and even Conservative MPs are friends of mine,I had good and solid reasons for changing my allegiance to them.
When they get a leader more in line with me then I may be happy to see them successful in the future,
All you have done in this thread is hammer Corbyn and Labour.
Even arguing Cameron had given his MPs a free vote when he had not done such a thing at all.

That is a massive difference between you and I because had he done so I would be strongly commending him personally for that very move.
Not giving him praise begrudgingly but given unreservedly too.

[Kizzy]

Can't do right for doing wrong springs to mind here :idc:

Bingo vicky! :/

[Johnnyuk123]

Cameron face to face with a terrorist about to blow themselves up infront of him would reach into his pocket then pull out a gun and shoot the terrorist dead. Corbyn face to face with a terrorist would reach into his pocket and pull out a credit card then giving it to the terrorist whilst give him directions to his new home in the uk along with a leaflet on how to get the most benefits out of the uk system.

[Kizzy]

Cameron face to face with a terrorist about to blow themselves up infront of him would reach into his pocket then pull out a gun and shoot the terrorist dead. Corbyn face to face with a terrorist would reach into his pocket and pull out a credit card then give it to the terrorist whilst give him directions to his new home in the uk along with a leaflet on how to get the most benefits out of the uk system.

What a ridiculous thing to say :/

[Johnnyuk123]

What a ridiculous thing to say :/

Not here no. Not at all.

[Johnnyuk123]

Lets just say that 10 wars in the next 12 months kicked off and britain was asked to help. Corbyn would reject all acts of war against all 10 terrorists starting those wars. Thats just me dropping truth tea on this loser.

[Johnnyuk123]

Lets be totally honest here. Corbyn can't even get his own members on the same page since his election. And thats even BEFORE the ISIS debate:joker::joker::joker:

[joeysteele]

If we couldn't laugh about it we'd be miserable ;)

We would indeed Demolition Red.

[Kizzy]

Yep if you didn't laugh you'd cry :laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

I wonder what people will think on here once the uk is attacked? We all know it is only a matter of time before we are attacked. So knowing this... will folk still be preaching that the UK should not attack the terrorists and get the same old shyte about having a nice chat with these terrorists instead after uk civilians have been slaughtered by them?

[bots]

Read my posts, I have supported Cameron on things when I think he is right, I even opened up to being persuaded by him on this issue, had he given his MPs a free vote too, then I would have been praising that too.

I don't like him politically, I don't trust him and would never electorally support his party under him but he doesn't get everything wrong and I said at the start of this issue on other threads, that he should get the support he needs.
So sorry you are wrong again and do me a disservice,whereas you admit you hate Corbyn and will never give him credit for anything.

I have no time for Cameron politically but many Conservatives and even Conservative MPs are friends of mine,I had good and solid reasons for changing my allegiance to them.
When they get a leader more in line with me then I may be happy to see them successful in the future,
All you have done in this thread is hammer Corbyn and Labour.
Even arguing Cameron had given his MPs a free vote when he had not done such a thing at all.

That is a massive difference between you and I because had he done so I would be strongly commending him personally for that very move.
Not giving him praise begrudgingly but given unreservedly too.

With respect Joey, you are talking complete bollocks. You have without exception, continually attacked Cameron and the Conservatives, always beating them down. The adjectives you have used ... and here you are saying you praise Cameron. I say again, complete and utter bollocks. If I even suggest all is not right with Corbyn or labour, a torrent ensues. Anyway, I'm tired of it now. Corbyn will be gone soon enough, so I'm comfortable I will have the last laugh.

[Kizzy]

With respect Joey, you are talking complete bollocks. You have without exception, continually attacked Cameron and the Conservatives, always beating them down. The adjectives you have used ... and here you are saying you praise Cameron. I say again, complete and utter bollocks. If I even suggest all is not right with Corbyn or labour, a torrent ensues. Anyway, I'm tired of it now. Corbyn will be gone soon enough, so I'm comfortable I will have the last laugh.

Do you know dave personally? Don't take anyones personal political views to heart so much BOTS :/

[Johnnyuk123]

What a ridiculous thing to say :/

I am open to hearing you expain your ridiculous comment in full...:wavey:

[Kizzy]

I wonder what people will think on here once the uk is attacked? We all know it is only a matter of time before we are attacked. So knowing this... will folk still be preaching that the UK should not attack the terrorists and get the same old shyte about having a nice chat with these terrorists instead after uk civilians have been slaughtered by them?

Right, and airstrikes will 100% remove the threat of a UK terrorist attack?

[Johnnyuk123]

Right, and airstrikes will 100% remove the threat of a UK terrorist attack?

So you are pro too innocent UK residents being blown up?

[Kizzy]

I am open to hearing you expain your ridiculous comment in full...:wavey:

Noooooo, I posted my reaction to your statement, I stand behind the reply I gave as an adequate measured response.

[Kizzy]

So you are pro too innocent UK residents being blown up?

Not in any universe did my post suggest that.

[Johnnyuk123]

Not in any universe did my post suggest that.

I don't nit pick every vowel in a post Kizzy to simply make a point. I have since asked you are you for or against uk citizens being blown up by these terrorists?
Yes or no?

[joeysteele]

With respect Joey, you are talking complete bollocks. You have without exception, continually attacked Cameron and the Conservatives, always beating them down. The adjectives you have used ... and here you are saying you praise Cameron. I say again, complete and utter bollocks. If I even suggest all is not right with Corbyn or labour, a torrent ensues. Anyway, I'm tired of it now. Corbyn will be gone soon enough, so I'm comfortable I will have the last laugh.

Really I am not going to waste my time responding to you again because you seem possibly unwilling to listen.
I usually recently only respond to you now when you respond to something I have said, well that is a mistake I shall not make in the future.

AS for your post above, you could most likely really apply your vitriol as to me in it to yourself and your comments actually.

[Kizzy]

Really I am not going to waste my time responding to you again because you seem possibly unwilling to listen.
I usually recently only respond to you now when you respond to something I have said, well that is a mistake I shall not make in the future.

AS for your post above, you could most likely really apply your vitriol as to me in it to yourself and your comments actually.

It's just that it's so socially acceptable to say whatever bizarre comments pop into your head regarding Corbyn, I let it wash over me now :laugh:

[joeysteele]

It's just that it's so socially acceptable to say whatever bizarre comments pop into your head regarding Corbyn, I let it wash over me now :laugh:

:joker: It is, I am pleased to see you have come to the point of letting it wash over you.
I am unfortunately someone who will go on if I believe an injustice is being done or double standards generally are at play.

You must teach me the letting it wash over you bit however.:joker:

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/30/433141/default/v1/metro-p1-dec-1-1-563x750.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/30/433145/default/v1/teleg-1-442x589.jpg

[Kizzy]

:facepalm: We have 'been at war' from the first day ISIS declared it on us with their very first beheading, bombing and slaughter of innocent people. What you are deluding yourselves about is that Cameron REALISES that we are under attack and WANTS to FIGHT BACK, while terrorist appeasing anti-UK Corbyn DOES NOT WANT US TO FIGHT BACK.

Cameron is NOT to blame here - ISIS are.

The UK did not start this war - ISIS did.

Keep 'slapping each other on the back' and maintaining your mutual delusion, but it is all coming across as a little bit false and hollow.

Corbyn is a dangerous and treasonous scumbag - in my opinion.

The war there ended in 2014... was there no threat from 2014 to now?
I will have my view thanks, your facepalms and caps do nothing to deter me from it.
We may be going back to war, time will tell not sure why that is envisaged with such gusto... If you think it will prevent terrorism that's delusion.