Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Hillary Benn thought the argument to invade Iraq was compelling.
I don't see much wrong with what Corbyn's said. He's generally opposed to bombing/intervention, and that's not going to change. It was always extremely unlikely that Cameron was suddenly going to be able to convince him, so I'm fine to see him sticking with his principles.
If he tries to whip the vote, then yeah, I can see why people will be pissed, but getting annoyed when someone who is against military action confirms in a letter that he's still against military action seems a bit futile.
If he tries to whip the vote, then yeah, I can see why people will be pissed, but getting annoyed when someone who is against military action confirms in a letter that he's still against military action seems a bit futile.
Right on queue, Momentum:
Spam them with threats of de-selection...
Mao would be proud of this new type of politics...
I wonder if emailing threats counts as socialism with an ipad?
We actually agreed the last time we discussed Syria but I am opposed to Cameron's proposals because the suggestion the ground forces will be made up of the Syrian Rebels who are really preoccupied with fighting Assad rather than Daesh seems like an awful solution. Certainly one I would not vote for if I were an MP.
I think this can now be changed officially to Maoism with an iPad.
Which bit of their message do you disagree with? Who else should you contact if you disagree with the proposed strikes other than your MP?
We're not drowning, though. And in that analogy, it seems to me like we'd be going after the small leaks not the big ones. We're also a target for many other terrorist organisations, but the other boys aren't attacking them so Cameron doesn't give a shit. If the government really wanted to stop ISIS they'd go after the Saudi's who are funding them, the Turks who are letting them use their border and the politicians in Iraq who run the group. You've gotta kill the king, not the pawns.
Yeah, it's very picky to be criticising that. Granted, they may hold a different opinion, but they make reasonable points of the humanitarian problems with intervention, and contacting your MP is a completely reasonable suggestion.
Again, I'm not insisting people should agree with action or be labelled pacifists (even though I'm being de facto labelled a warmonger by some). On the rebels though, they're already fighting with Da'esh on one front, Assad on the other. Assad is content to let them lose, Russia's been more interested in bombing them. Ground forces is the one area I'm not sure there's enough information on yet, I've seen some estimates of upwards of 60,000 non-jihadi rebels but I have no way of confirming or denying them. Inaction certainly isn't going to help though.
For one, the tone. "Bomb another muslim country" is straight out of the Stop the War playbook, and they're a bunch of cretins. Two, as I posted earlier, Corbyn's letter earlier was like a batsignal (Corbsignal?) for this to be sent out. Momentum are actively campaigning to deselect non Corbyn supportive MPs (rumoured to include Stella Creasy, ffs, one of the best campaigning MPs in the country), so I don't think emails are going to be simple pleas for the MP to vote against, they're going to be threats of deselection.
This is weird.
@Ubik Absolutely agree that no one should write to their MPs threatening deselection if they vote for the strikes. I'm surprised that the majority of the PLP isn't more hesitant at the prospect of strikes. They seem to be using it to further the division with Corbyn rather than contemplating the mistakes of Iraq.
On the issue at stake, on the one hand the arbitrary Iraq border limiting strikes is ridiculous. On the other, any escalation of commitment, particularly in a country undergoing a civil war, should have a much clearer objective than that offered by Cameron.
@Ubik Absolutely agree that no one should write to their MPs threatening deselection if they vote for the strikes. I'm surprised that the majority of the PLP isn't more hesitant at the prospect of strikes. They seem to be using it to further the division with Corbyn rather than contemplating the mistakes of Iraq.
On the issue at stake, on the one hand the arbitrary Iraq border limiting strikes is ridiculous. On the other, any escalation of commitment, particularly in a country undergoing a civil war, should have a much clearer objective than that offered by Cameron.
That survey's badly phrased. If you think something is "not very" effective, you still think its effective, just weakly so. Only 1% of respondents said "not effective at all".
Think the Guardian editorial on it is overall quite fair http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tement-a-short-but-serious-debate-is-required
Is Jeremy Corbyn a bit of a sandal wearing lefty? Wants us to get rid of nukes, doesn't want us to support France in air strikes, etc.
David Cameron challenged over 'magical' 70,000 moderates figure
A senior Conservative MP has challenged David Cameron over his "magical" claim that there are 70,000 moderate fighters in Syria who could seize Isis-held territory following a bombing raid on the Islamic extremists in the north of the country.
The claim has also become a sticking point for Labour, with Jeremy Corbyn expected to demand clarification over the 70,000 figure before deciding his party's position on air strikes.
Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Committee, said he was "extremely surprised" to hear the Prime Minister tell MPs that there were "about 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups" when he set out the case for launching air strikes against Isis targets in Syria.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...gure/ar-AAfGZ07?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignoutmd
A senior Conservative MP has challenged David Cameron over his "magical" claim that there are 70,000 moderate fighters in Syria who could seize Isis-held territory following a bombing raid on the Islamic extremists in the north of the country.
The claim has also become a sticking point for Labour, with Jeremy Corbyn expected to demand clarification over the 70,000 figure before deciding his party's position on air strikes.
Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Committee, said he was "extremely surprised" to hear the Prime Minister tell MPs that there were "about 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups" when he set out the case for launching air strikes against Isis targets in Syria.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...gure/ar-AAfGZ07?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignoutmd
Not a huge sample size but such a massive majority for action that at the very minimum Corbyn should give some serious thought as to how this is going to impact on his image... And how best to project his opinion without looking like a power mad scruffy hippy geography teacher
Not that he will of course
Little bit.
More importantly, does he wear socks with the sandals?
Who saw Diane Abott's interview on sky?
One in one (#1in1) Ubiks don't think Corbyn is a sandal wearing lefty, but I guess that's by-the-by.
As bad as usual? Or especially bad?
If he does, he should be ousted immediately!
#CheesyvCorbynBloodbath
There'll be no sitting round a table and negotiating this one! Especially if he turns up with the socks and sandals!
Pretty bad. Think other shadow ministers will be forced to vote Corbyn's way exposing him as a hypocrite.
I think some may quit (Benn surely won't vote against after what he said today.... Eagle and Powell possibly as well)
Seems like most disagree with Corbyn from reports such as
http://news.sky.com/story/1595110/shadow-cabinet-anger-over-shock-corbyn-letter
Red ken on question time tonight... What could possibly go wrong
Burnham preparing his "pleeeease vote for me this time, I'll be your best friend" campaign for the leadership.
I really can't tell whether people in here are opposing Corbyn's reasoning because it's Corbyn or because they actually believe a credible case has been made. Or perhaps because they just think something should be done?
I suggest going away and actually reading the dossier as it's unsubstantiated drivel. It may be political suicide to force a whip but his reasoning for opposing our involvement is spot on.
I suggest going away and actually reading the dossier as it's unsubstantiated drivel. It may be political suicide to force a whip but his reasoning for opposing our involvement is spot on.
Partly the first, partly the last. Definitely not the middle.
My annoyance with Corbyn is his usual imbecilic manner of dealing with it.
The plans, as far as I see, match up with the motion passed in the Labour conference, have a UN resolution backing them up, and a direct request from the French to us for aid. It's also worth noting that the chair of the foreign affairs committee, who had previously been opposed to action and whose report Corbyn had been using to justify his own opposition, is now in favour.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Corbyn isn't for joining our allies in bombing IS and I doubt anything would convince him otherwise.
Huge insult to his party to have made his mind up even before they've discussed it fully.
Again, that shouldn't come as a surprise either.
Huge insult to his party to have made his mind up even before they've discussed it fully.
Again, that shouldn't come as a surprise either.
Why would Corbyn back airstrikes himself? He's mostly against all forms of military intervention, and he'd look like an arse if he suddenly backed on his principles. If he tries to force the whip on Labour, then fair enough, complaints will be expected, but Corbyn himself being against airstrikes is hardly surprising.
The letter just underlines how unsuited he is to the role
I was saying for at least a week before the debate that politically his best move was going to be to allow a free vote as it maintains his personal stance with no compromise, could be seen as an olive branch and an inclusive move by others in his party and would allow him to pressure the government into making sure their own MP's were given a free vote.
But that letter basically declared war not on Syria / daesh but on the majority of the PLP... A free vote now will look like a climb down rather than an olive branch and this is just a taster of how fractured a Corbyn lead shadow cabinet will be when it comes to trident
I was saying for at least a week before the debate that politically his best move was going to be to allow a free vote as it maintains his personal stance with no compromise, could be seen as an olive branch and an inclusive move by others in his party and would allow him to pressure the government into making sure their own MP's were given a free vote.
But that letter basically declared war not on Syria / daesh but on the majority of the PLP... A free vote now will look like a climb down rather than an olive branch and this is just a taster of how fractured a Corbyn lead shadow cabinet will be when it comes to trident
Last edited:
And that's why the prospect of him becoming our PM is so frightening! As can be clearly seen by his stance on this, the shoot to kill policy when confronted by terrorists and never being prepared to launch Trident shows he (and his equally woolly friend Abbott) are not fit to be in charge of protecting us.
And how is adding our bombs to the clusterfeck in Syria supposed to be protecting us exactly?
His opposition is to shoot-to-kill as a general policy, there's still freedom to engage terrorists as is currently the case. It's just a matter of not making it the first option as innocents tend to die that way.
Thankfully we're all safe now anyway as Blair hae the balls to invade away to protect us. Corbyn didn't even want to invade Iraq, what a wuss.