Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Smores said:
And how is adding our bombs to the clusterfeck in Syria supposed to be protecting us exactly? :lol:

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.
Click to expand...
he also voted against acting to stop chemical weapons being used against civilians
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=6688
On 29 Aug 2013:Jeremy Corbyn voted against a motion stating a strong humanitarian response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria was required from the international community that may, if necessary, require military action.
Click to expand...
If he wants to be a credible leader then at some point he has to say what would prompt him to authorise military action abroad - and if people using chemical weapons on civilians does not warrant potentially using militray force one wonders what his trigger points may actually be.
There is some interesting reading here as well with things he has previously rebelled against... it makes it pretty untenable (imo) to try and whip the vote on Syria.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40733#divisions
 
sun_tzu said:
he also voted against acting to stop chemical weapons being used against civilians
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=6688
Click to expand...

This needs some context. A lot of MPs voted against that. see - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/cameron-british-attack-syria-mps

David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.

In a devastating blow to his authority, the prime minister lost a government motion by 272 votes to 285 – an opposition majority of 13 – after scores of Tory MPs voted with Labour.

This was pre the ISIS we know now. They were not really a factor in this proposed action. It could be argued that strikes at that time would have played strongly into the hands of ISIS.
 
simon_xazza said:
This needs some context. A lot of MPs voted against that. see - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/cameron-british-attack-syria-mps

David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.

In a devastating blow to his authority, the prime minister lost a government motion by 272 votes to 285 – an opposition majority of 13 – after scores of Tory MPs voted with Labour.

This was pre the ISIS we know now. They were not really a factor in this proposed action. It could be argued that strikes at that time would have played strongly into the hands of ISIS.
Click to expand...

It could also be argued that they could have been used to bring asad down quickly before Russia got involved and an international force could have safeguarded the rule of law and prevented the rise of daesh - in truth we will never know either way...

The point remains though that is Corbyn wants to be leader of this country one of the things he needs to convey is under what circumstances he would authorise military force (eg Falklands invasion, a 911 type attack in the UK orchestrated from an ungoverned space, or a state sponsored terrorist act in the Uk - all examples that at the moment I am not certain would prompt a military response from Corbyn.)
You can argue that as leader of the opposition he does not have to do that - he just has to say no if he does not agree with Cameron but the reality is that come a general election people will want to know his position because if not they will not vote for him.
 
Smores said:
And how is adding our bombs to the clusterfeck in Syria supposed to be protecting us exactly? :lol:

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.
Click to expand...


Bombs tend to weaken the enemy and might go some way to persuade nutjobs travelling to join IS. We can of course leave it to others to do the dirty work, ignore the requests for help from our neighbours and pretend it will just all go away. Let's all join hands with Smores and hope for the best. FFS.
 
Commentators are now saying the Oldham by-election is looking like it will be a close run contest between Labour and UKIP
Considering the result less than a year ago was a 15,000 majority for Labour and the breakdown was as follows
Labour 54.78%
UKIP 20.61%
Conservatives 18.98%
Libs 3.68%

Then anything other than a big labour win will reflect very badly on Corbyn... infact the polster they had on five live with local knowledge says the only thing that will stop labour loosing the seat is that there is a high (circa 25%) muslim population in the constituency who will never switch to UKIP.
But if you think about the implications nationally then this theory that Labour can win back votes from UKIP looks like its well off - also the scottish polls dont seem to show a swing back to labour under a corbyn leadership - and many labour moderates (not to mention liberal voters or conservative moderates) seem less likely than ever to vote labour

Its going to be a very tough week for Corbyn
 
sun_tzu said:
It could also be argued that they could have been used to bring asad down quickly before Russia got involved and an international force could have safeguarded the rule of law and prevented the rise of daesh - in truth we will never know either way...
Click to expand...
How ? Cameron has never proposed ground forces and neither has anyone else. So the "an international force could have safeguarded the rule of law" would have been very unlikely. Don't forget the US went ahead at that point and here we are now.

You have a point, people will want to know where he stand. I just wouldn't throw in the fact that Corbyn voted against that particular proposal when more than half of MPs agreed and voted the same way.
 
Marching said:
Bombs tend to weaken the enemy and might go some way to persuade nutjobs travelling to join IS. We can of course leave it to others to do the dirty work, ignore the requests for help from our neighbours and pretend it will just all go away. Let's all join hands with Smores and hope for the best. FFS.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that the more bombs available the quicker we'll end ISIS? Because the US are already struggling to identify and bomb targets as it is.

You've made two posts which amount to "we have to do something as ISIS are bad". Well you know what if somebody is already doing as much as can be done from air strikes already then no we don't. If you're arguing we should do more so the US and France have to do less then fair enough.

Do you want boots on the ground? That's the only effective solution we can bring to do the table. Is Cameron weak in your opinion for not utilising our armed forces in stopping ISIS?
 
Marching said:
Bombs tend to weaken the enemy and might go some way to persuade nutjobs travelling to join IS. We can of course leave it to others to do the dirty work, ignore the requests for help from our neighbours and pretend it will just all go away. Let's all join hands with Smores and hope for the best. FFS.
Click to expand...

Remind me of how effective perpetual bombing was in Iraq and Libya.
 
Smores said:
Are you under the impression that the more bombs available the quicker we'll end ISIS? Because the US are already struggling to identify and bomb targets as it is.

You've made two posts which amount to "we have to do something as ISIS are bad". Well you know what if somebody is already doing as much as can be done from air strikes already then no we don't. If you're arguing we should do more so the US and France have to do less then fair enough.

Do you want boots on the ground? That's the only effective solution we can bring to do the table. Is Cameron weak in your opinion for not utilising our armed forces in stopping ISIS?
Click to expand...

As Cameron said it is not a case of blindly bombing just because others are it's a case of maintaining the UK's counter-terrorism capabilities, advancing a political settlement in Syria, delivering a credible government for the war-torn Middle East nation and defeating ISIS through 'military and wider action' along with continued humanitarian work, planning for the stabilisation and reconstruction of Syria and working with other nations to mitigate the impact of ISIS on the stability of the region.

I presume the United Nations Security Council took that on board when passing a resolution calling on member states to take 'all the necessary measures' against ISIS, also known as ISIL, in both Syria and Iraq.

As for struggling to find targets, have you seen a recent map of IS controlled areas of Iraq and Syria? I guess not.

As for troops on the ground, they will come from the Syrian army and not us.
 
I wish I could believe everything Cameron says so easily, must be a blissful existence. Stuck with Corbyn and McDonnell instead. Yay for me.
 
Shamwow said:
I wish I could believe everything Cameron says so easily, must be a blissful existence. Stuck with Corbyn and McDonnell instead. Yay for me.
Click to expand...

Trouble with them is they say different things. And to be fair, so do most of his own hand picked shadow cabinet. A Labour source said only 4 agreed with Corbyn.
 
Kaos said:
Remind me of how effective perpetual bombing was in Iraq and Libya.
Click to expand...

Well currently people seem to generally better off and even living longer with a better standard of living to. The fact the government are now benefitting from the proceeds of more than million barrels of oil a day will be helping too. Far from an ideal situation and still more to do but there is lots of info out there if you are interested enough to look.
 
Marching said:
Trouble with them is they say different things. And to be fair, so do most of his own hand picked shadow cabinet. A Labour source said only 4 agreed with Corbyn.
Click to expand...
And that most certainly does not include the shadow foreign secretary or defence minister
Could the conservatives conceivably call vote on Wednesday (the day before the by-election?)... would be pretty divisive to have either a bunch of resignations that day, or more likely a free vote with the majority of the shadow cabinet voting against their leader.

My gut feel is they will wait until after the by-election where a bad result may well embolden a number of MPs to feel free to vote against corbyn
 
Marching said:
Well currently people seem to generally better off and even living longer with a better standard of living to. The fact the government are now benefitting from the proceeds of more than million barrels of oil a day will be helping too. Far from an ideal situation and still more to do but there is lots of info out there if you are interested enough to look.
Click to expand...

I visit the region every year and have half my family living in Iraq. Long story short - they're not better off, and they're amongst the more 'luckier' ones too. Not quite sure where you got that info from.
 
Marching said:
As Cameron said it is not a case of blindly bombing just because others are it's a case of maintaining the UK's counter-terrorism capabilities, advancing a political settlement in Syria, delivering a credible government for the war-torn Middle East nation and defeating ISIS through 'military and wider action' along with continued humanitarian work, planning for the stabilisation and reconstruction of Syria and working with other nations to mitigate the impact of ISIS on the stability of the region.

I presume the United Nations Security Council took that on board when passing a resolution calling on member states to take 'all the necessary measures' against ISIS, also known as ISIL, in both Syria and Iraq.

As for struggling to find targets, have you seen a recent map of IS controlled areas of Iraq and Syria? I guess not.

As for troops on the ground, they will come from the Syrian army and not us.
Click to expand...

They're all nice aims but the issue is that no plan has been provided to how any of it is going to be achieved. Our contribution to the air campaign will be very minimal make no mistake and there is no plan on how any political settlement is achieved. It's just the same argument, we have to be involved in defeating ISIS.

Even the Chairman of the defence commitee is unconvinced by the moderate rebel force(s). I imagine we'll have as much success relying on them as the US did in training a force from these rebels.
 
sun_tzu said:
And that most certainly does not include the shadow foreign secretary or defence minister
Could the conservatives conceivably call vote on Wednesday (the day before the by-election?)... would be pretty divisive to have either a bunch of resignations that day, or more likely a free vote with the majority of the shadow cabinet voting against their leader.

My gut feel is they will wait until after the by-election where a bad result may well embolden a number of MPs to feel free to vote against corbyn
Click to expand...

The shadow cabinet is in turmoil...did I hear correctly that Abbot missed most of an important meeting when she left to answer her phone and spent her time in another important meeting writing her Xmas cards? Farcical.

I'm sure Cameron will have eyes and ears in Corbyn's 'Rally the Shadow cabinet' meetings and as the info comes out Cameron's decision will be made. Surely Corbyn has to allow a free vote to keep hold any self respect.
 
Whether the UK should be more directly involved in the Syrian conflict isn't really the question, however Corbyn's unwillingness to recognise even that most simple of imperatives has quite negated what influence the opposition might have had here. On the face of it there are some reasonable points made in Corbyn's letter, only they are so lacking in sincerity as to have been drained of any value whatsoever (Jeremy's position would be unchanged regardless).

I tired to work my way through Cameron's 41-page plan last night but gave up at an early stage, there being more cliches and useless generalities than i found all of the parties manifestos this May. Whilst the symbolism of Britain doing its part doesn't count for nothing, and shouldn't be discounted as such, it would be the exaggeration of an eager salesman to portray this as anything approaching a grand strategy. Besides Kurdish forces (who are the most referenced in PM's document) i am rather sceptical of this 70,000 figure, so i think it only only right and proper for MPs to wonder at the identity of the units in question. Who is going to bring to heel these bands of 'moderates' once the dust has settled anyway, has Europe learnt nothing from its precipitous exit after the Libyan campaign? Right now it is hard to say what a post-war Syria would look like, yet i can't envisage the Turks accepting any reality which places the Kurds in a more independently powerful position.

Alas, Cameron is no Marlborough of Wellington, and it doesn't look like he spoke to many strategists either. The presence of British forces ought to allow us a greater capability to pursue those residents and nationals for whom we have a particular interest though, and that should at least be of practical benefit to the security services.
 
simon_xazza said:
How ? Cameron has never proposed ground forces and neither has anyone else. So the "an international force could have safeguarded the rule of law" would have been very unlikely. Don't forget the US went ahead at that point and here we are now.

You have a point, people will want to know where he stand. I just wouldn't throw in the fact that Corbyn voted against that particular proposal when more than half of MPs agreed and voted the same way.
Click to expand...
The US went ahead, more than a year later, against Da'esh and not Assad. With the aid of the likes of Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it should be said.
 
Ubik said:
The US went ahead, more than a year later, against Da'esh and not Assad. With the aid of the likes of Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it should be said.
Click to expand...

Correct. I think I just think the statement "he also voted against acting to stop chemical weapons being used against civilians" was a oversimplification given how other MPs and the general public felt on that issue at that particular time.
 
Saw this on the Beeb. No idea who these people are but thought I'd add another view point to the debate. The full letter is here: http://www.syriauk.org/

A group of prominent Syrians living in the UK have written to David Cameron and MPs calling for a political push to solve the conflict.

The letter, signed by representatives of nine groups including Syria Solidarity UK and Peace and Justice in Syria, says bombing Islamic State would not defeat it but make it stronger.

It said that civilians had been driving IS out of towns but it had been impossible to sustain while they were being bombed by President Assad - and that bombing from the air would not win the support of people on the ground who wanted to defeat IS.

"The only way to defeat ISIL is by stopping the Assad regime's indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, including areas control by moderate rebel groups. Once this happens, Syrians will be freed up to drive out ISIL themselves, as they have proved themselves capable of doing," the letter says.

"To make this happen, the UK and other countries need to get serious about the political resolution of the conflict.

"The peace talks that started a few weeks ago in Vienna offer hope to build on the agreements made two years ago in Geneva for a political transition in Syria, but we need to go beyond hope."
Click to expand...
 
So they want us to destroy the military capability of the present government, leaving behind what pass for moderates, al-Nusra and IS? Presumably Damascus would be sacked in the interim, with much depredation being visited upon its inhabitants.

It sounds a bit like what we did in Iraq but worse.
 
Last edited:
I also don't support air strikes but you need a serious person to make a serious argument against the air strikes. Two months on, the idea that Corbyn could unite the party is looking more daft by the week.
 
Corbyn will once again be proven right . And we will be left in a even more insecure country.
 
Jippy said:
Very dodgy and baseless implied linkage between him being a scam victim online and alleged bullying from Clarke. Borderline libel.
Heavy use of 'explosive' and other such tabloid staples.
Click to expand...

To be fair it's incredible Shapps is still in any role whatsoever.

EDIT: :lol: Posted this and then immediately found out he's gone. Finally.
 
Positive news, but hopefully this isn't used as a line to draw under the matter, they failed in their duty of care (not only to Elliot Johnson but to many others as well) and a lot more answers are still needed on how this guy was allowed to get away with it (and be lauded) for so long.
 
Jippy said:
Very dodgy and baseless implied linkage between him being a scam victim online and alleged bullying from Clarke. Borderline libel.
Heavy use of 'explosive' and other such tabloid staples.
Click to expand...
Nope - read the full article Silva posted. Appalling behaviour, sums up why normal, good people will always fail in politics.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Nope - read the full article Silva posted. Appalling behaviour, sums up why normal, good people will always fail in politics.
Click to expand...
I read the longer piece he posted a link to abd it is much more detailed. Paints a grim picture, agreed.
Btw, do 'normal, good' people wank off into a camera in front of some lass they've just 'met' online?
 
Whilst the Conservative party are singing the praises of our Brimstone missiles perhaps they should be explaining why the only country we have sold them to is Saudi Arabia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.