Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Smores said:
Labour can't win in their response to this. Cameron has in no way laid forward a credible justification, just more emotional justification.

Don't back the strikes and it'll be attacked by the Tories and the media left right and centre. Corbyn is going to have to go against his best judgement and balance voting for strikes as a lesser evil than the damage it will do to the party but do so in such a way that damages the tories when they feck it up.
Click to expand...

Zero chance of that happening.
 
From the new statesman.

Labour's shadow cabinet has just met for the first time since David Cameron made his case for air strikes against Isis in Syria. A majority of members are prepared to support military action, according to those present, but Jeremy Corbyn is not. At the start of the 75 minute meeting, the Labour leader read out a prepared statement stating his unconditional opposition to air strikes. He was supported by shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott, who said that she would never vote to send the armed forces to war, shadow communities secretary Jon Trickett and Parliamentary Labour Party chair John Cryer (who added that he was prepared to back the shadow cabinet's collective view). Shadow chancellor John McDonnell did not speak but has previously stated his opposition to air strikes.

The remainder, however, either favour or are prepared to support military action. Following Corbyn's statement, shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn spoke, arguing that the tests Labour had set for intervention (such as a UN resolution) had been met and that Cameron had made a "compelling" case for air strikes. He was supported by deputy leader Tom Watson, who reminded the shadow cabinet that he had rebelled over Libya in 2013 and emphasised the atrocities committed by Isis in Syria. He called for the party to reach a collective decision.

Shadow justice secretary Charlie Falconer agreed with Benn that the conditions set by the Labour's conference resoution had been met. Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell argued strongly in favour of air strikes and called for the shadow cabinet to reach a collective view, rather than holding a free vote. Shadow culture secretary Michael Dugher also backed military action and said the vote was a test of whether Labour was a protest movement or an opposition that aspires to be in government.

Despite a majority favouring air strikes, the party's collective position remains undecided. A Corbyn aide said afterwards that the shadow cabinet was "halfway through" the decision making process and that a view would be reached on Monday after MPs had returned from their constituencies. Whatever the outcome, Labour will be badly divided. A collective decision in favour of action would divide the leader and the shadow chancellor from their team. A decision against action would leave Corbyn at odds with most of the shadow cabinet. A free vote would avoid a split but in the view of many frontbenchers leave Labour "unfit for government". It is not tenable they argue for the opposition not to take a collective view on an issue as grave as military action.

With the SNP and the Liberal Democrats set to vote against air strikes, Labour's position is crucial. Having said that he will only act if he can achieve a "clear majority", Cameron may pull the vote if Corbyn whips his party against.
Click to expand...
 
Did Cameron actually make a compelling case? I haven't seen what he said.
 
Shamwow said:
Did Cameron actually make a compelling case? I haven't seen what he said.
Click to expand...

Nothing new just the moral case to aid our allies.

Also cited some figures around a 70k moderate rebel force that would provide sufficient feet on the ground and when challenged on it just said that's what I was told.

When challenged around there already being too many aircraft chasing too few targets by a Tory backbencher his argument was there's too many terrorists with too many targets.

No long term plan other than saying moderates will step in to stabilise hopefully.
 
bishblaize said:
From the new statesman.
Click to expand...
A test of whether this "consensual approach" he and his supporters banged on about is true.

I'd hope that Abbott's actual statement was a hell of a lot more nuanced than "never" voting for action.
 
bishblaize said:
From the new statesman.
Click to expand...
Have these people really learned nothing from the mistakes of the past 15 years? At least Blair's lies included nukes and shit ffs.

Ubik said:
A test of whether this "consensual approach" he and his supporters banged on about is true.

I'd hope that Abbott's actual statement was a hell of a lot more nuanced than "never" voting for action.
Click to expand...
It's hard to get nuance when your position is being quoted in a single sentence tbf. And I'm sure she meant in the current political context. It's not like we're facing a Napoleon or a Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
Have these people really learned nothing from the mistakes of the past 15 years? At least Blair's lies included nukes and shit ffs.


It's hard to get nuance when your position is being quoted in a single sentence tbf. And I'm sure she meant in the current political context. It's not like we're facing a Napoleon or a Hitler.
Click to expand...
Diane usually gets more confused the longer she speaks, so I'd be unsure of that myself.
 
Silva said:
What exactly is pathetic about that?
Click to expand...
Another meeting on Monday to build "consensus". So obviously, you send out a pre-emptive letter on the Thursday saying you won't back action. He's completely undermined the rest of the shadow cabinet. He's actually rebelling on his own cabinet.

But I'm sure some will still say this is great leadership.
 
I agree with Corbyn when he says the PM has not explained what credible and acceptable ground force could retake and hold Isis territory.

What is British policy on that? If it is 'anyone except IS' then the PM should say so. Bombing wouldn't get my support on that basis though.
 
712 said:
I agree with Corbyn when he says the PM has not explained what credible and acceptable ground force could retake and hold Isis territory.

What is British policy on that? If it is 'anyone except IS' then the PM should say so. Bombing wouldn't get my support on that basis though.
Click to expand...
I don't think Cameron really cares who fills in any potential vacuum. He just wants to play with the other boys.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well reasoned, well argued, transparent, honest.

Can't wait for this to be used as a stick to beat him with, too.
Click to expand...

There is literally no reasoning and no arguing in there. He simply states his point of view, with no evidence or reasoning given to back it up.
 
He has two options here - resign, or sack those dissenting in the shadow cabinet.
 
bishblaize said:
There is literally no reasoning and no arguing in there. He simply states his point of view, with no evidence or reasoning given to back it up.
Click to expand...

Well I can understand why you've said that if you've only read the first three sentences.

Literally the entire letter from the sentence ending 'national security' through to 'The shadow cabinet' is an argument, and its dispersed with his reasoning too.

I'm not sure why you think his argument needs to be anything other than 'the PM hasn't been able to prove why we should bomb Syria'. It's Cameron's job to persuade him, and MP's and the public that theres a reason to it.

Other than the fact we want revenge, I'm still yet to hear Cameron say how he will solve the problem in Syria. Until he has an idea rejecting half-baked 'solutions' (that in all likelihood, based on all evidence from when we've done it before will make it worse) for being half-baked is sensible.
 
Ubik said:
But I'm sure some will still say this is great leadership.
Click to expand...

Cameron and Osborne will probably agree with that

With his letter he is basically laying down the law to his shadow cabinet and I think he runs a real risk of people defying him and / or resigning.

I'm not sure he will be able to find many (any?) credible mps to backfill roles at the moment so potentially this is going to be very divisive... The sensible option was to allow a free vote but after the letter I think that would look too much like a climb down
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well I can understand why you've said that if you've only read the first three sentences.

Literally the entire letter from the sentence ending 'national security' through to 'The shadow cabinet' is an argument, and its dispersed with his reasoning too.

I'm not sure why you think his argument needs to be anything other than 'the PM hasn't been able to prove why we should bomb Syria'. It's Cameron's job to persuade him, and MP's and the public that theres a reason to it.

Other than the fact we want revenge, I'm still yet to hear Cameron say how he will solve the problem in Syria. Until he has an idea rejecting half-baked 'solutions' (that in all likelihood, based on all evidence from when we've done it before will make it worse) for being half-baked is sensible.
Click to expand...

Stating that something merely "is", or "isnt', is not the same as explaining why. Cameron claims the strategy is coherent, Corbyn disagrees. Cameron claims the ground forces are sufficient, Corbyn disagrees. But why? Without explaining why he's merely asserting opinion as fact.

And no, its not on Cameron to persuade in this case, because Cameron isn't the one writing this letter and trying to convince his party to agree with him.
 
bishblaize said:
Stating that something merely "is", or "isnt', is not the same as explaining why. Cameron claims the strategy is coherent, Corbyn disagrees. Cameron claims the ground forces are sufficient, Corbyn disagrees. But why? Without explaining why he's merely asserting opinion as fact.

And no, its not on Cameron to persuade in this case, because Cameron isn't the one writing this letter and trying to convince his party to agree with him.
Click to expand...

Of course its on Cameron.

Thankfully in a Democracy things like debate, and votes, and arguments -and sometimes even reason- dictate what things do and don't happen. Just yesterday the Government's stupid plans in regard to Tax Credits got shelved because of those things.

If Cameron wants to bomb somewhere he needs to prove that thats a good idea, saying 'I don't think your argument is convincing enough to justify that course of action' is all Corbyn needs.
 
bishblaize said:
Stating that something merely "is", or "isnt', is not the same as explaining why. Cameron claims the strategy is coherent, Corbyn disagrees. Cameron claims the ground forces are sufficient, Corbyn disagrees. But why? Without explaining why he's merely asserting opinion as fact.

And no, its not on Cameron to persuade in this case, because Cameron isn't the one writing this letter and trying to convince his party to agree with him.
Click to expand...
He explains that there's no coherent strategy for what would happen on the ground/ who ISIS territory would be given to if 'we' managed to take it. Who would that be? Last time we were here the plan was to bomb Assad.
 
bishblaize said:
Stating that something merely "is", or "isnt', is not the same as explaining why. Cameron claims the strategy is coherent, Corbyn disagrees. Cameron claims the ground forces are sufficient, Corbyn disagrees. But why? Without explaining why he's merely asserting opinion as fact.

And no, its not on Cameron to persuade in this case, because Cameron isn't the one writing this letter and trying to convince his party to agree with him.
Click to expand...
At least he's actually trying. Cameron's basically just begging parliament to let him play with the other boys. He's not got a very compelling argument for getting us involved. And it's difficult to have a detailed criticism against a practically non-existent argument.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Come off it.
Click to expand...
I struggle to think of a more appropriate word. It was obvious he was going to be against it, but why release that letter days before shadow cabinet had agreed (or failed to agree) on a course of action? He's not a leader, he's a protester.
 
NinjaFletch said:
If Cameron wants to bomb somewhere he needs to prove that thats a good idea, saying 'I don't think your argument is convincing enough to justify that course of action' is all Corbyn needs.
Click to expand...
Hillary Benn thought it was a compelling argument - so it seems do many others

The issue now is how Corbyn (mis?)manages the situation
 
What I don't understand is why shadow ministers are clamoring to bomb Syria. Why is the party that's supposed to protect organised labour filled with warmongers? It doesn't make sense.
 
Silva said:
What I don't understand is why shadow ministers are clamoring to bomb Syria. Why is the party that's supposed to protect organised labour filled with warmongers? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Labour's a party of government, they take the defence of the country seriously. Labour is not an offshoot of the Stop the War Coalition. Yet, anyway.
 
sun_tzu said:
Hillary Benn thought it was a compelling argument - so it seems do many others

The issue now is how Corbyn (mis?)manages the situation
Click to expand...

I don't think he was convinced by Cameron's arguments, though, which is the point.

There's a large section of Labour MPs being very hawkish for the same, (lack of?) reason as Cameron.

You're right that its Corbyn's job to convince those people; but as a rejection of Cameron's plan (for lack of a better word) saying that he's yet to set out how he thinks it helps is a perfectly valid reason to not support it.
 
Ubik said:
I struggle to think of a more appropriate word. It was obvious he was going to be against it, but why release that letter days before shadow cabinet had agreed (or failed to agree) on a course of action? He's not a leader, he's a protester.
Click to expand...
There are valid points raised in there, which you would hope to be raised by any Leader of the Opposition. If those are taken on board and Cameron responds to them then it's only a benefit to the British people and the War on ISIS.
 
sun_tzu said:
I think as an MP you have to represent and protect more than just organised labour.
Click to expand...
I fail to see who we're going to protect by adding to the bombing going on. We're partially responsible for the mess afterall, with these Labour MP's having tricked us into fecking Iraq up and doing nothing about Saudi funding of extremism for the last however many years. The vote isn't on protecting people, it's on us being involved in the blood thirsty cluster feck that is the Syrian civil war, and I want our armed forces to have nothing to do with it. The only morally acceptable action in that cluster feck is to help the refugees out where we can. Not to pile in on the destruction of their homes.

Ubik said:
Labour's a party of government, they take the defence of the country seriously. Labour is not an offshoot of the Stop the War Coalition. Yet, anyway.
Click to expand...
Again, how will bombing Syria help our security? Will it stop our Saudi friends from exporting extremism? Will is stop Iraqi sunni's wanting the power they feel the deserve? Because I don't see anything that suggests it will. All we'll do is kill a few pawns, and cause a whole lot of collateral damage. No thank you.
 
ThierryHenry said:
There are valid points raised in there, which you would hope to be raised by any Leader of the Opposition. If those are taken on board and Cameron responds to them then it's only a benefit to the British people and the War on ISIS.
Click to expand...
Which he did in his response at the despatch box. Sending a letter out to Labour MPs saying you "cannot support action" before the shadow cabinet has come to a decision is going several steps further. All this letter is is a request to Momentum members to spam their local MP over the weekend.
 
Silva said:
Again, how will bombing Syria help our security? Will it stop our Saudi friends from exporting extremism? Will is stop Iraqi sunni's wanting the power they feel the deserve? Because I don't see anything that suggests it will. All we'll do is kill a few pawns, and cause a whole lot of collateral damage. No thank you.
Click to expand...
And you're entitled to that view. Mine is that if Da'esh view us as a terror target (is this arguable?) and are able to continue to plan attacks in Syria, they are by definition a threat. Saying we shouldn't act because of other factors is like saying we shouldn't try to fix a big leak in a roof because there are two other leaks as well. You don't just sit there and drown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.