Yeah sorry. Came across like I was arguing with you, and I actually wasn't trying to
I'm on edge!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.
I'm on edge!Its a shame that this vote will be hijacked by the media, turning it into a party issue
Clearly any significant victory will be much more down to the late Meacher and his successor than the wider state of the party.
Clearly any significant victory will be much more down to the late Meacher and his successor than the wider state of the party.
In fact they have exactly the same amount of responsibility for lives lost through inaction as those who advocate action.That is why it is a choice, and you can make either one but you can't pretend you didn't make one.
The road to hell versus all it takes for evil to succeed.
No, they don't. The people who have responsibility for deaths in conflict are those who kill people. Not those who don't.
Ah the zero consequence decision lover.
I agree we should not be bombing Syria but I accept that some people are going to die if we don't and that is on me. People do indeed kill other people and your argument means we should stand back and let it happen in all circumstances even if we can save lives through action to stop it. I think your view leads to the more despicable world.
I like Andrew Neil's insistence on calling Cameron "Call Me Dave"
And could Corbyn's brother be any different to him? What an episode this weekAnd the Gordon Brown Websphere
So you admit you were misled. So why are you quick to choose to believe the very same elements that are encouraging us to go to war again?
I didn't say I believed there were WMD.....I didn't know one way or the other until it was proved there weren't.
There are known knowns and known unknowns. So you supported that war on the basis of what exactly?
But you supported the Iraq war nonetheless?
Pretty damn close to that was said, to be fair.
I say again, your own article you posted was 25% positive and 75% skeptical.
Farage is pissed off on Twitter, for anyone who wants some amusement.
He's such an odious prick. Love seeing him seethe.Farage is pissed off on Twitter, for anyone who wants some amusement.
Jim sounds like he's going to be an excellent MP, seems exactly the kind of person you'd want as your representative.
I loved the "veteran of 30 by-elections" - looooser!
Green vote down 1%
Paul Nuttalls from the UKIPS just going for the straight xenophobic approach.
EDIT:
Had to edit to include this one, it's too good
Last edited:
Utterly classless man. Glad to see his party making little traction compared to what some thought they'd manage.
The most ridiculous thing is, even if every postal vote was for Labour, take them away and they'd still have won by 3k+. Would love to set Hilary Benn on Farage.
The Lib Dem vote is still falling i see.
Prior to the result UKIP were predicting that most of 7,000 postal ballots would go the way of Labour, which sounds like an awful lot under any electoral conditions (suggestive of an efficient local party apparatus).
Prior to the result UKIP were predicting that most of 7,000 postal ballots would go the way of Labour, which sounds like an awful lot under any electoral conditions (suggestive of an efficient local party apparatus).
Had the result given you any optimism for Labour going forward?
Indeed, Jim is a fellow Liz voter
We in the 4.5% have to stick together.Regarding the actual vote, it's certainly good for Corbyn after the week he's had, looks to essentially maintain the gap from May and given it was expected to be much worse, definite plus for him in the near-term. I'd have been haranguing him with the best of them had the majority shrunk a lot, so only fair he gets a win from it given the strong result.
Voting no wasn't necessarily a vote for inaction...the main argument against was that no one had been given any detail or argument as to how or why air strikes would actually be effective, or what exactly the plan is in the longer term. If I was going to vote to bomb another country it certainly wouldn't be in a circumstance where absolutely no plan at all had been presented to demonstrate the bombing would do more good than harm. When even the Prime Minister has to resort to imature, half witted slander tactics rather than put across a constructive argument, I doubt I'd be persuaded. "No" can mean "come up with something better first" rather than just plain no.
In anycase, if you're voting on a matter that could cost lives, either way you should have enough conviction in your belief/decision not to start crying like a baby because people get angry about it. Are Labour MPs just going to start whining now every time they make a diffiicult/unpopular decision and some angry people turn up on twitter? Is anything anyone's said even any worse than Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" comment?
If you don't like accepting the consequences of making decisions, being an MP isn't a particularly well suited career choice.
You can't vote to drop bombs and expect some people not to be angry with you about it...even if it's a completely clear cut situation (which this isn't). It's part of the job of representing a country of people...you have to be prepared to accept that difficult decisions will anger people, and be prepared to stand by your decision to those people. If you can't do that you're not fit to be making such decisions in the first place. I don't envy people having to make such decisions, but the fact is if you vote to carry out air strikes, you should be ready to take the part of the responsibility that comes with that, because you should actually believe it's the right thing to do. The crying and whining suggests MPs are happy to make decisions but don't want the responsibility that comes with them.
All a fair number of this Labour lot have done since Corbyn came in though, is whine and bitch about having to do their jobs. It's embarassing. They've shown themselves up as a party riddled with childish idiots.
And again, it's somewhat pointless crying about people attacking the morality of MPs based on their vote, when the Prime Minister himself already claimed anyone who voted no would be a "terrorist sympathiser" ...Cameron brought the childlike reasoning wand into the debate, waving it around like a complete fecking idiot, and now MPs are complaining because twitter got it's hands on the wand. Give me a break
Because comments like "blood on your hands" isn't healthy debate, or really in any way related to the actual choice being made. People that voted for the action clearly believed that doing so would save lives and prevent people being tortured, kidnapped and raped, each of which Da'esh would undertake with abandon were they not checked. I genuinely dread to think how hard it is to make a decision where your vote directly affects whether action is taken to stop that kind of thing, knowing full well civilians may be at risk. It's like being given a button where you know if each time you pressed it, there'd a high chance of saving hundreds of lives, but also a small risk of taking some innocent lives at the same time. Millennia of philosophical debate haven't given us a foolproof ethical solution to such a thought, so I'd say to reduce the debate to facile "bloody hands" pointscoring is deeply beneath the issue. You could say MPs should be thicker skinned, yeah maybe, but I'd certainly not begrudge them being able to call anyone making the argument tosspots.
And yes, I fully agree that voting no wasn't a vote for inaction, many people (both on this site and in the Commons) made excellent points against. But most of the people currently doing things like sending pictures of dead children in the mail to MPs who voted for this, are the kind of people who'd prefer to give up the military altogether, and seemingly do not actually want to engage with the debate as it exists, preferring instead to demean the moral decency of people they've never met or spoken to over an issue they neither understand nor care to.
The war has been raging for nearly five years now, with the last Commons vote in 2013, so it is in my opinion quite unacceptable for either side of the chamber to be advocating no plan at all or one of such limited scope. We've attempted to keep the conflict at arm's reach due to the uncertainty of the situation and past mistakes, and whilst understandable the policy has cost many lives. The Corbyns and Stop The Wars of his world care more for the blood that might appear on their own hands, than taking actions to prevent less on the ground.
At least Cameron is focusing on Islamic State in this instance, the inadequacies of the plan carried far greater risks when Assad alone was the target (which why he couldn't even convince his own party two years back).
At least Cameron is focusing on Islamic State in this instance, the inadequacies of the plan carried far greater risks when Assad alone was the target (which why he couldn't even convince his own party two years back).
I've wrestled with this one quite a lot of late. I was against action then on the grounds of uncertainty as to who would be the beneficiaries in the long run. I look now at the death toll rising above 300,000, the displaced in the millions and quite literally dying to reach safety, and wonder whether we could have lowered those figures. The counter-case of Libya can be given with good reason, but I similarly wonder what would've happened to those in Benghazi had the no-fly zone not been put in place. I also found it deeply annoying during the debate when people used that vote in 2013 to bring up the argument of "we're now voting to bomb his enemy", which is at the very least a wilful distortion of the facts.
But if we (the West or wider international community) weren't going to follow up with ground forces afterwards, the situation would have descended into one approaching Iraq in time. The theory behind creating safe havens was sound enough i think, however no country is prepare to commit the troops necessary to enforcing such. But from the migrant crisis to regional global terrorism Syria has become the cause of so much ill in the world, so it can't be right for Britain to look the other way. And i quite agree, the 2013 vote was a misjudgement from which to learn lessons, not a justification to do nothing thereafter.
Nigel Farage is raging.
I totally agree we should continue policing internally to stop attacks here.
I disagree that we should abandon the people of Syria until there is a settlement in the civil war. Those very people are being tortured, raped, burnt alive, crucified, buried alive every single day and for us and the other 12 countries in the coalition to stand aside and simply wait is completely wrong. Can you imagine how quickly ISIL will spread across the region if unchecked? There must be a continued military, diplomatic and humanitarian course of action action to achieve the coalition aim to unite Syria under a moderate leader.
Are you for UK ground troops being deployed out of interest?
Various Syrian groups have been saying our bombing isn't enough, will give greater cause to terrorists and bemoaning our unwillingness to actually take the necessary action with ground forces.
There's a lot of talk about the responsibility of inaction in the last few pages so presumably all those posters believe by not going in on the ground that we're responsible for the further lives lost?
I can't quite make sense of the half measure here that people have come to peace with.
Last edited:
not sure why
even if all the postal votes were not included they still would have lost
I agree that postal voting does not seem the best solution and personally Id favour some online system.
He has a conference at 10 - wonder if he will wind his neck in a bit by then or if he still calls the result "bent"
On reflection it is not a massive surprise. I was amazed when it was reported that UKIP even had a chance. Of course there are the large ethnic communities in the ward but the McMahon led Labour council have been and are overseeing a lot of regeneration in the area.
They secured funding from the last Labour government to rebuild all the schools in the ward which has given the area brand new individually designed schools, they look impressive. At the moment there is major regeneration in the town and McMahon's council have managed to fund regeneration of the decaying town hall and to attract a Marks and Spencer superstore to the town. It was seen as big coup considering Oldham's reputation as decaying post industrial hellhole.
The UKIP candidate turned up from wherever and started trying to poo poo McMahon's work with vague talk of turning Oldham into a 'technology hub', it did not convince.
One of McMahon's campaign leaflets stated 'don't let this outsider ruin our progress', or something to that effect, flipping the UKIP narrative right back on them.
If I still lived in the ward I would have voted Labour in this case. UKIP have no link to the town and it was purely a strategic position for the candidate and party.
I can see the issues of having non Muslim troops on the ground so no, I'd be against our troops being sent in. Bombing is only part of the solution.
Which story - the army saying don't use a precise figure as people will only remember the figure and hold you to it?
Or the mp being put under police protection after getting death threats for voting in favour of air strikes?
Or can sathnam learn to love classical music?
See I don't understand your viewpoint here. There's well discussed issues with bombing too, does the moral imperative to aid those in danger evaporate because we'd then be putting our troops at risk?
If Assad gave us permission would you be okay to go in on the ground?
IMO the bombing is part of the process to weaken the enemy and ultimately reach the goal of helping those in danger. To simply parachute our troops into the area without bombing ISIL would be to the advantage of those who are well used to fighting in those conditions and lengthen even further the conflict.
Not sure we would take much notice of such an Assad invitation.
This war cannot be won with bombing alone and will require coordination with ground troops. Currently the only coherent ground troops right now are regime soldiers, bolstered by Hezbollah and some Kurdish militias.
Who are we supposed to coordinate with? Cameron's phantom militants on the ground are made up of Islamists, some including Al Nusra and other AQ elements who are more interested in fighting Assad and themselves in instead of ISIS, that's if they mostly exist and assuming that even a fraction of them are interested in working with us.
So how are we to succeed without any coherent ground forces to coordinate with?
I've already said the situation will not be solved by bombing alone and eventually ground troops will be needed...just not ours.