I guess. Still Cameron foreign policy has been piss poor(Not that I think Corbyn ideas will do much on the international stage anyway) although my point was more that it's a shit state of affairs when the prime minster(the guy at the top of the political food chain resorts) to the same childishness as newspapers as well as just to laugh at Dave's big stupid fat head which to be honest most of the time is my only point.Even when put into the context of his entire statement on the matter, it wouldn't have been a win for Corbyn.
More than 50 Labour MPs to defy Jeremy Corbyn in vote on Syria
At least 50 Labour MPs are prepared to defy Jeremy Corbyn by backing military action to protect civilians in Syria, it has emerged, as cross-party support grows for a new and comprehensive strategy to end the crisis.
In a clear challenge to the Labour leader’s authority, a group of MPs and peers is ready to work with Conservative colleagues to promote a three-pronged strategy in which military intervention by UK forces would complement fresh humanitarian and diplomatic initiatives.
In a sign of increasing cross-party cooperation over Syria, Tory MP and former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell, and Labour MP Jo Cox, a former head of policy at Oxfam, have joined forces in support of the plan in an article for the Observer. Corbyn has consistently made it clear he is opposed to British military involvement in Syria.
Although his close friend and shadow chancellor John McDonnell has suggested Labour MPs could be given a free vote in the Commons, it would be a huge blow to the leader’s authority if a vote was passed with the backing of a sizable number of Labour MPs.
Before the launch by Cox of an all-party group on Syria in parliament on Tuesday, she and Mitchell say that the response of the international community to the Syria crisis, through the UN, has been “woefully inadequate”.
They call for more humanitarian support for refugees from both the UK government and EU, urgent diplomatic efforts to bring President Bashar al-Assad to the negotiating table, and military involvement which has “protection of civilians at the heart of the mission”.
This could include the use of troops to protect new “safe havens” inside Syria, and enforce a “no-fly” or “no bombing zone” to prevent Assad launching further attacks on his own people, as well as moves to hit Islamic State in Syria.
Mitchell and Cox write: “Some may think that a military component has no place in an ethical response to Syria. We completely disagree. It is not ethical to wish away the barrel bombs from the Syrian government when you have the capacity to stop them. The deaths and fear generated by these indiscriminate air attacks are the main drivers of the refugee crisis in Europe. Nor is it ethical to watch when villages are overrun by Isis fighters, who make sex slaves of children and slaughter their fellow Muslims, when we have the capability to hold them back.”
Senior Labour sources say between 50 and 100 of their MPs – including several members of the shadow cabinet – would be ready to back British military action if its ultimate purpose was to protect civilians caught up in a growing humanitarian disaster, rather than merely to extend attacks on Isis into Syria.
David Cameron, who failed in 2013 to win the backing of the Commons for intervention in Syria, has indicated that a fresh vote on military action may be imminent. It is understood he has been told by Tory whips that the number of Conservative MPs who would oppose intervention would be in single figures, and more than outnumbered by the number of Labour MPs who would be prepared to back the move.
On Monday in a Commons debate on Syria, Cox will say that Labour should not allow the experience of Iraq to blind it to the need to back the use of military force for humanitarian ends, as it did in Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. She will argue that Cameron has for too long put the issue on the “too difficult” pile following his humiliation in 2013.
John Woodcock, Labour MP for Barrow and Furness, who is joining the all-party parliamentary group, said that MPs must keep an open mind given the human suffering of the Syrian people and the resulting refugee crisis.
“The bottom line is that the killing and the flight of civilians will go on unless the international community can create safe havens in Syria for terrified people who are still being bombed,” he said. “That may well mean greater involvement from air forces to sustain a no-fly zone and will certainly require an end to the hand-wringing over President Putin’s disgraceful deceit in bombing anti-Assad rebels rather than Daesh [Isis].”
Shadow justice secretary Lord Falconer told the Observer: “My position is that the government has to make a military case. There has to be good reason to be doing it, obviously it has to be legal, and we have to consider what the consequences are, including radicalisation here. On the basis that the proper case is made, I think it would be capable of support. But it has to be made and they have not yet done that.”
Corbyn also faces challenges over austerity and immigration. Senior Labour MPs have privately called on him to support the immigration bill, which includes measures to prevent immigrants undercutting British workers. However, shadow home secretary Andy Burnham has insisted that the party will oppose the “kneejerk” bill.
Meanwhile, Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon is attacking Corbyn’s support for the fiscal charter, which will commit the government to delivering an overall surplus by 2019-20 and to running an overall budget surplus in “normal times”.
She told the Observer: “This week is a key test of Labour’s credentials under Jeremy Corbyn – and it is a test they dare not fail if they are to be taken remotely seriously as an opposition.
“If Labour do not vote against the Tories’ spending proposals, all of their anti-austerity rhetoric will be exposed as empty bluster and will confirm the SNP as the only serious party of opposition in the Commons.
“Jeremy Corbyn has been overruled by his senior colleagues on Trident, and he cannot allow that to happen on austerity too.”
It's coming from Labour sources, who you'd expect to have a decent grasp on the numbers, and the SNP are neither here nor there if fewer than ten Tories are likely to rebel.A) I doubt it's going to be 50, this is abit like the 'dozens' of MPs that were supposedly going to defect to the flip flop party.
B) The SNP aren't going to vote for it either.
It would be a massive issue for his leadership if he'd gone out saying 'My line is the party line, no questions asked', but he never did. He's said from the start he won't dictate policy to anyone from on high and it's been clear from the start that his support among the party membership is his strength rather than his support among the PLP. All in all it's a bit of a non-story.
It's more about trying to stop Syrians getting hit by barrel bombs and chemical weapons, I'd think.Will be so glad to see us bombing Syria, it worked so well in Libya which is now a shining light as a progressive, democratic country in that region...
It's more about trying to stop Syrians getting hit by barrel bombs and chemical weapons, I'd think.
Which civilians does the report above say we're planning to bomb? I can only see stuff about no-fly zones and no-bombing zones.Bombing civilians in order to stop other civilians getting hit by barrel bombs, seems legit. Don't know how can people still believe this BS.
Sad times for the party when a rebellion of 50 MPs isn't even big news.
Is this going to be true of the Trident vote as well? Is everything going to be a free vote?You can't really rebel against someone who isn't trying to force you to do anything.
You can't really rebel against someone who isn't trying to force you to do anything.
@Hellboy @NinjaFletch
What would you say that a stand-off approach has achieved in the Syrian conflict, and how will such help bring about a resolution in the near future?
Being forced into a free vote so that your MPs technically aren't rebelling doesn't change what it is.
Are you saying he's not going to be using the whip? At all?He's said from the start that he won't impose policy top-down so you can't really say he's been forced. However much you want it to be an embarrassing situation for Labour, its just Corbyn doing something he said he'd do all along - allow democracy in the party rather than forcing people to vote against their conscience via the whips
Are you saying he's not going to be using the whip? At all?
He's said from the start that he won't impose policy top-down so you can't really say he's been forced. However much you want it to be an embarrassing situation for Labour, its just Corbyn doing something he said he'd do all along - allow democracy in the party rather than forcing people to vote against their conscience via the whips
Jeremy Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell are set to toughen up Labour's reputation as an 'anti-cuts' party by withdrawing support for the Tory Government's budget tightening plan.
Amid fears of being outflanked by the Scottish National Party (SNP), the Shadow Cabinet is poised to agree a U-turn on George Osborne's 'Charter for Budget Responsibility' that commits parties to running a budget surplus.
Apparently Labour have u-turned on the fiscal charter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/12/labour-set-to-vote-agains_n_8280838.html
Stupid, frankly. Not to disagree, but to tell everyone that the deficit matters and should be eliminated asap, but then to change your mind simply because of pressure from the SNP. The Tories will dine out on this for months.
Not particularly encouraging - this is a one man mistake of turning into something much bigger.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488
I guess the most tangible effect of not bombing Syria initially is that the Assad regime is still a player. Getting rid of Gaddafi was about the only thing that bombing Libya achieved.
Sir Nicholas Soames being a hilarious hypocrite:
"He [Tom Watson] has become the witch-finder general," he told BBC Radio 5 live. "I really do think we have got to bring some order to this debate which is running out of hand."
Do you think that Watson's response to the Brittan family was appropriate and sensitive of their position? He could yet be called before the Home Affairs select committee over his handling of the case.
The Tories can dine out on it all they like, it's widely regarded as economically stupid so I'm glad Labour are doing the right thing.
It's also a pretty big gamble by Osbourne that there is no significant crash between now and 2020. They'll have egg on their face if they can't hit their own budget charter targets.
Nah, I'm just saying that if he does use it at some point it'd be a bigger story than him not using it. The whip is an institution designed to give party higher-ups the ability to impose their will on elected representatives and I'd be surprised if he was favour of its use, given the 'new politics' line and his enthusiasm for party democracy. The whip is one of the most 'old politics, Westminster bubble, business as usual' conventions I can think of. The only way I would see it's use as justified is if it was used to make MPs adhere to the wishes of the party, rather than to make them adhere to the wishes of its leader. Ideally the whole decision making process would be bottom up rather than top down but obviously that comes with its own raft of logistical issues
Thoughts? Feelings? Concerns?
Given how often Corbyn felt it necessary to put his principles above labour policy when he was a backbencher I am sure he will understand if some of his colleagues choose a similar approach
Thoughts? Feelings? Concerns?
