[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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
Or will it look bad either way?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 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

'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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?...

Spoiler:

[MTVN]

Don't you quote Orwell at me

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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.