[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[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]

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.

Yes without CCHQ interference.

[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]

'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/commentis...ilitary-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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.