If I was Corbyn , I would whip the vote on Syria, show some leadership.
The shadow cabinet members that do not support him resign and go back to the backbenches like Robin Cook did.
A completley new shadow cabinet will be formed from MP`s that did support his view over Syria.
Agree, time he sorted out these whingers, otherwise he might as well give up now. get an ultimatim out and sack the next one that goes against him in public. He is there to lead and if they don't support him then sack them.
Totally agree bring it to a head. If the numbers are to great in the PLP not to suuport him over syria. Then he resigns at least on a matter of his own principle.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
I guess you'd have argued that the carnage of 1914 was a good reason to do nothing in 1939?
LOL, are you that barking you can compare sending two planes to Syria with the Great War
Good Morning, Mr. G., actually a fair number of good and honourable men who had the best interests of the UK at heart thought that the carnage of 1914-18 war was a very good reason for not joining in in 1939. I am still not sure they were wrong.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Yorkcity Corbyn was slightly better on Marr..which makes him look good..but the reality is he still spouts bullshine..
Yes Richard , he was not my choice for Labour Leader and in my opinion he has no chance of becoming PM. But the choice was dreadfull , whatever southam on here says about the rest would now be doing better. If Jarvis and Chuka were so concerned they should have stood.
''Fallon could have meant several things there - not enough cross Party support for example.''
Sorry but I do not understand the cross party support argument. The tories have a majority and they have the unionists.
It is surely therefore irrelevant what labour do to a resolution passing. If labour don;t want to support, that is their affair.
Let the voters draw their own conclusions.
Unless of course, Cameron is suspicious of his own MPs.
I think there's an attitude out there that in such an important matter, you should not just have a majority of MPs, but also have as broad a consensus as possible. It should not be one party going to war, but the country.
At this stage, I'd favour front benches having to vote with the party line, but backbench MPs having a free vote.
Long-term, the best thing for Cameron and the Conservatives (although not the country) might be this getting voted down, or Cameron declaring that he doesn't think it will pass because of Corbyn's intransigence. Then, when there is an ISIS-inspired attack here in the UK (and sadly it will be a 'when') the media and many of the public will blame Corbyn.
In fact, it might be more of an effect than people blaming the government when there is an attack *after* action.
But that would be intolerable case of playing with this issue for political ends ...
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
I guess you'd have argued that the carnage of 1914 was a good reason to do nothing in 1939?
LOL, are you that barking you can compare sending two planes to Syria with the Great War
Good Morning, Mr. G., actually a fair number of good and honourable men who had the best interests of the UK at heart thought that the carnage of 1914-18 war was a very good reason for not joining in in 1939. I am still not sure they were wrong.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Sadly, I think that if/when we do have an attack here - it will be the Security Services and police and HMG who are blamed for failing to protect us on our own turf.
Bombing ISIS is Syria is another matter. As Rod Liddle notes in the STimes - we may as well bomb Luton.
BTW - the STimes today has some great features/columns - well worth buying a copy.
''Fallon could have meant several things there - not enough cross Party support for example.''
Sorry but I do not understand the cross party support argument. The tories have a majority and they have the unionists.
It is surely therefore irrelevant what labour do to a resolution passing. If labour don;t want to support, that is their affair.
Let the voters draw their own conclusions.
Unless of course, Cameron is suspicious of his own MPs.
I think there's an attitude out there that in such an important matter, you should not just have a majority of MPs, but also have as broad a consensus as possible. It should not be one party going to war, but the country.
At this stage, I'd favour front benches having to vote with the party line, but backbench MPs having a free vote.
Long-term, the best thing for Cameron and the Conservatives (although not the country) might be this getting voted down, or Cameron declaring that he doesn't think it will pass because of Corbyn's intransigence. Then, when there is an ISIS-inspired attack here in the UK (and sadly it will be a 'when') the media and many of the public will blame Corbyn.
In fact, it might be more of an effect than people blaming the government when there is an attack *after* action.
But that would be intolerable case of playing with this issue for political ends ...
The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
Coupled with the LibDems and the Greens being at their year low points. So no comfort for the Corbynistas that that is how their vote will move forward...
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
There is some merit in what you say, which of course would make Hilary Benn’s position untenable. – Personally however, I think the vote on Syria, as with abortion IMO, should be based on an individual MP’s conscience and not whipped on party lines and on this occasion at least, should be extended to front bench MPs.
Are the other parties offering a free vote? (Genuine question.)
Sadly, I think that if/when we do have an attack here - it will be the Security Services and police and HMG who are blamed for failing to protect us on our own turf.
Bombing ISIS is Syria is another matter. As Rod Liddle notes in the STimes - we may as well bomb Luton.
BTW - the STimes today has some great features/columns - well worth buying a copy.
''Fallon could have meant several things there - not enough cross Party support for example.''
Sorry but I do not understand the cross party support argument. The tories have a majority and they have the unionists.
It is surely therefore irrelevant what labour do to a resolution passing. If labour don;t want to support, that is their affair.
Let the voters draw their own conclusions.
Unless of course, Cameron is suspicious of his own MPs.
I think there's an attitude out there that in such an important matter, you should not just have a majority of MPs, but also have as broad a consensus as possible. It should not be one party going to war, but the country.
At this stage, I'd favour front benches having to vote with the party line, but backbench MPs having a free vote.
Long-term, the best thing for Cameron and the Conservatives (although not the country) might be this getting voted down, or Cameron declaring that he doesn't think it will pass because of Corbyn's intransigence. Then, when there is an ISIS-inspired attack here in the UK (and sadly it will be a 'when') the media and many of the public will blame Corbyn.
In fact, it might be more of an effect than people blaming the government when there is an attack *after* action.
But that would be intolerable case of playing with this issue for political ends ...
@Plato_Says "Bombing ISIS is Syria is another matter. As Rod Liddle notes in the STimes - we may as well bomb Luton."
Hey, thats not such a bad idea, providing we use only smart bombs.
''I think there's an attitude out there that in such an important matter, you should not just have a majority of MPs, but also have as broad a consensus as possible. It should not be one party going to war, but the country.''
True, but I sense there is something more. Conservative back benchers are not happy with Cameron and Osborne. They are unhappy with the Clarke thing. the big gamble Osborne is taking with the nation's finances, and the awful immigration stats.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
Coupled with the LibDems and the Greens being at their year low points. So no comfort for the Corbynistas that that is how their vote will move forward...
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
There is some merit in what you say, which of course would make Hilary Benn’s position untenable. – Personally however, I think the vote on Syria, as with abortion IMO, should be based on an individual MP’s conscience and not whipped on party lines and on this occasion at least, should be extended to front bench MPs.
Are the other parties offering a free vote? (Genuine question.)
No idea Mr Palmer, I was going to ask the same question, I guess we’ll find out next week.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
I guess you'd have argued that the carnage of 1914 was a good reason to do nothing in 1939?
LOL, are you that barking you can compare sending two planes to Syria with the Great War
Good Morning, Mr. G., actually a fair number of good and honourable men who had the best interests of the UK at heart thought that the carnage of 1914-18 war was a very good reason for not joining in in 1939. I am still not sure they were wrong.
Morning Hurst , totally agree, hard to believe that they got into it again after the slaughter in the Great War. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are never involved in any sacrifice. As ever posturing by politicians who have no clue or plans and just get involved in knee jerk reactions, safe in the knowledge that it has no impact on them. It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
Yorkcity Corbyn was slightly better on Marr..which makes him look good..but the reality is he still spouts bullshine..
Yes Richard , he was not my choice for Labour Leader and in my opinion he has no chance of becoming PM. But the choice was dreadfull , whatever southam on here says about the rest would now be doing better. If Jarvis and Chuka were so concerned they should have stood.
However bad Corbyn is he is head and shoulders above the ones he beat.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
It's not really a period I've studied in detail, but surely all the major countries in Europe were acting like rutting stags, trying to show their dominance (e.g. by building the biggest fleets). Surely some form of conflict was pretty inevitable from around 1912 onwards, as can be seen by the ludicrously farcical way the war started?
The horrors of modern warfare were unknown, and the glories of long-past battles overspun. For too many countries, a war was seen as a way of gaining, not losing.
Something would have sparked off the conflict, and as the major power we were always going to get dragged in.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Being a lazy git I didn't see Corbyn this morning but it looks like a very direct challenge to Benn and his ilk. I really don't see how Benn can remain in post but then I didn't really see how he could take the position in the first place. This kind of crisis was simply inevitable.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
I would stick to doctoring.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
Smug smartarse, hopefully Fox gets you in his operating theatre some day and expains military tactics to you
Smug Really? Why? Simply for pointing out a fact and that the original poster had the position entirely incorrect. Mind you as we only "have two planes" as you keep saying I don't suppose it matters much.
By the way Are you completely incapable of posting anything without a constant tirade of abuse to every other poster on here?
Oh and for the record ..... I am x military so don't need any lessons thanks.
Morning Hurst , totally agree, hard to believe that they got into it again after the slaughter in the Great War. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are never involved in any sacrifice. As ever posturing by politicians who have no clue or plans and just get involved in knee jerk reactions, safe in the knowledge that it has no impact on them. It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
Churchill went to fight on the front lines after the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Perhaps Blair should have steppe down and gone to fight in Iraq ....
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Yes there might be enough , but if there is he gives it a shot. If not he resigns. Either way it can not go on like this with the shadow cabinet undermining him at every occasion, then complaining when he goes out to the membership for their views.
The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
Coupled with the LibDems and the Greens being at their year low points. So no comfort for the Corbynistas that that is how their vote will move forward...
Never underestimate the levels of delusion that exist among Corbyn supporters. Remember who they chose to lead Labour!
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
Coupled with the LibDems and the Greens being at their year low points. So no comfort for the Corbynistas that that is how their vote will move forward...
What happened in May? *innocent face*
That would have been the Referendum:
How Crap is Ed Miliband?
a) crap
b) very crap
c) Ed-stone crap
d) OMFG!!!!!! We have done so badly we can get our party back!!! Whooooopeeeee!
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
A victorious Germany circa 1916 could not have invaded the UK: even Hitler circa 1940 could not do it. It might have caused some problems in Africa, with the German and British empires bumping in to each other, but other than that, not really.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
I also have some sympathy for this. I mean, whatever these people are planning may well make things worse, but that's going to happen whether the British join in or not, so maybe the British should just forget about the outcome and show solidarity with their allies when they're being attacked.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
Yawn. No, of course they won't. They provide part of the service. So stop pretending the same organisation needs to do everything.
I can't talk about Alliance Medical in too much detail. But NHS England re-tendered four regions nationally with individual NHS trusts invited to tender. And they decided that Alliance Medical's proposition was the most attractive. They had a very specific proposition which I think will significant improve disease management and treatment protocols.
But perhaps you don't think that the Christie - as a leading global expert - should have a leading role in cancer imaging services on a nationwide basis but would rather it was handled by a local trust.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Yes there might be enough , but if there is he gives it a shot. If not he resigns. Either way it can not go on like this with the shadow cabinet undermining him at every occasion, then complaining when he goes out to the membership for their views.
Did the membership not express their views at the Party conference when they passed a resolution which imposed 4 pre-conditions, all now met? It seems to me that it is Corbyn who is refusing to accept party policy but there is nothing new in that. He has ploughed his own furrow for the last 30 years. Its just no one had to pay any notice before.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
I would stick to doctoring.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
Smug smartarse, hopefully Fox gets you in his operating theatre some day and expains military tactics to you
Smug Really? Why? Simply for pointing out a fact and that the original poster had the position entirely incorrect. Mind you as we only "have two planes" as you keep saying I don't suppose it matters much.
By the way Are you completely incapable of posting anything without a constant tirade of abuse to every other poster on here?
Oh and for the record ..... I am x military so don't need any lessons thanks.
Oh... And as you always seem to make unfounded claims on here then as yesterday pleas provide a link to your claim that if this country does agree to this motion then we only intend sending two planes. ( you constantly claim it in this thread and yesterday's if I recollect?)
Or is it as yesterday where you have based your entire claim on the "it stands to reason dun it" type of approach of the pub bore.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
It's not really a period I've studied in detail, but surely all the major countries in Europe were acting like rutting stags, trying to show their dominance (e.g. by building the biggest fleets). Surely some form of conflict was pretty inevitable from around 1912 onwards, as can be seen by the ludicrously farcical way the war started?
The horrors of modern warfare were unknown, and the glories of long-past battles overspun. For too many countries, a war was seen as a way of gaining, not losing.
Something would have sparked off the conflict, and as the major power we were always going to get dragged in.
P'haps.
Recent European wars had all been won very quickly by one side or the other, with relatively little harm done to civilians. But it turned out that WWI would be more like the Napoleonic War, rather than the Franco-Prussian war.
The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
Coupled with the LibDems and the Greens being at their year low points. So no comfort for the Corbynistas that that is how their vote will move forward...
What happened in May? *innocent face*
That would have been the Referendum:
How Crap is Ed Miliband?
a) crap
b) very crap
c) Ed-stone crap
d) OMFG!!!!!! We have done so badly we can get our party back!!! Whooooopeeeee!
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
Why would we have been fighting the Germans? They would never have attacked us, and they weren't genocidal Nazis. They would have ended up dominating continental Europe - not so very different from now. We should have done what the US did and grown fat on the profits.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Yes there might be enough , but if there is he gives it a shot. If not he resigns. Either way it can not go on like this with the shadow cabinet undermining him at every occasion, then complaining when he goes out to the membership for their views.
It can and it will. Labour needs to start consistently losing real elections before anything will happen. The membership - and, more importantly, the unions - have to fully absorb Corbyn's catastrophically poor appeal before there's any chance of change. Hopefully Oldham will be a start.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
If I had to put my reasons in order of importance that would probably be number 1 and not just for the French. We need to be a reliable friend to have reliable friends.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
If I had to put my reasons in order of importance that would probably be number 1 and not just for the French. We need to be a reliable friend to have reliable friends.
Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
Yawn. No, of course they won't. They provide part of the service. So stop pretending the same organisation needs to do everything.
I can't talk about Alliance Medical in too much detail. But NHS England re-tendered four regions nationally with individual NHS trusts invited to tender. And they decided that Alliance Medical's proposition was the most attractive. They had a very specific proposition which I think will significant improve disease management and treatment protocols.
But perhaps you don't think that the Christie - as a leading global expert - should have a leading role in cancer imaging services on a nationwide basis but would rather it was handled by a local trust.
My point is that imaging without on-site Interventional radiology is futile for a stroke service. If that is required then we are back to my point. Stroke services need to be organised on a basis that serves at least a population of millions to be viable. That means closure or downgrading of some A/E departments in order to consolidate on one site. The logistics are the same whether delivered by private or NHS providers.
This is the point at which 7 day 24 hour state of the art services meets local hospital closures. Thay is part of the electoral minefield that Jeremy Hunt is wandering about in. He is either being foolish or mendacious in not making this clear.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Being a lazy git I didn't see Corbyn this morning but it looks like a very direct challenge to Benn and his ilk. I really don't see how Benn can remain in post but then I didn't really see how he could take the position in the first place. This kind of crisis was simply inevitable.
As long as Benn stays in post he is the most likely replacement for Corbyn, if he goes to the backbenches that diminishes dramatically
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
It's not really a period I've studied in detail, but surely all the major countries in Europe were acting like rutting stags, trying to show their dominance (e.g. by building the biggest fleets). Surely some form of conflict was pretty inevitable from around 1912 onwards, as can be seen by the ludicrously farcical way the war started?
The horrors of modern warfare were unknown, and the glories of long-past battles overspun. For too many countries, a war was seen as a way of gaining, not losing.
Something would have sparked off the conflict, and as the major power we were always going to get dragged in.
P'haps.
Recent European wars had all been won very quickly by one side or the other, with relatively little harm done to civilians. But it turned out that WWI would be more like the Napoleonic War, rather than the Franco-Prussian war.
Its possible that if the Russians hadn't been so badly organised in their invasion of East Prussia then the Great War would indeed have been over by Christmas.
If the Germans lose at Tannenburg then their position is strategically hopeless.
Chuka Umunna reported on SkyNews to be voting for airstrikes even if Corbyn whips the vote, Lord Falconer on the Sunday Politics says Corbyn is leader with a mandate and there is no question of a leadership challenge at the moment
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
I don't think Blair would have thought he was lying even if he was. He had too much of a 'Messiah ' mentality.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Being a lazy git I didn't see Corbyn this morning but it looks like a very direct challenge to Benn and his ilk. I really don't see how Benn can remain in post but then I didn't really see how he could take the position in the first place. This kind of crisis was simply inevitable.
As long as Benn stays in post he is the most likely replacement for Corbyn, if he goes to the backbenches that diminishes dramatically
Not if by staying in post he makes himself look weak and ridiculous. I don't personally see how he can avoid that now.
I flipping hate Corbyn. I had written the afternoon thread based on the Ladbrokes next out of the shadow cabinet market.
After his interview this morning, they've pulled the market.
He has won them over
@paulwaugh: One Shad Cabinet waverer on Syria now less likely to vote for military action after seeing Corbyn set out his line on #marrshow. Others too?
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
Why would we have been fighting the Germans? They would never have attacked us, and they weren't genocidal Nazis. They would have ended up dominating continental Europe - not so very different from now. We should have done what the US did and grown fat on the profits.
Because British foreign policy for a thousand years has been predicated on preventing one country dominating the entire of the Channel coast
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Yes there might be enough , but if there is he gives it a shot. If not he resigns. Either way it can not go on like this with the shadow cabinet undermining him at every occasion, then complaining when he goes out to the membership for their views.
It can and it will. Labour needs to start consistently losing real elections before anything will happen. The membership - and, more importantly, the unions - have to fully absorb Corbyn's catastrophically poor appeal before there's any chance of change. Hopefully Oldham will be a start.
Yes but if you were Corbyn in his position it seems logic to me to now whip the vote. Then he has a chance of getting a shadow cabinet, that might back his positions.
Make them make a decision. Then eirther he stays or goes. You just repeat your mantra on every post, of doing nothing. Which is becoming boring.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
That's how it looks to me. But I'd like to hear some actual information from people who actually know about ISIS and what their likely goals are.
''ts possible that if the Russians hadn't been so badly organised in their invasion of East Prussia then the Great War would indeed have been over by Christmas.''
Over estimation of russian capability was a key factor in WW1. It emboldened a France smarting after the indignities of 1870.
The desperate attempt by France to restore its prestige was, in my view, a prime mover in WW1.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
I flipping hate Corbyn. I had written the afternoon thread based on the Ladbrokes next out of the shadow cabinet market.
After his interview this morning, they've pulled the market.
He has won them over
@paulwaugh: One Shad Cabinet waverer on Syria now less likely to vote for military action after seeing Corbyn set out his line on #marrshow. Others too?
Nobody needs to resign. Everything is fine...
Chuka Umunna though has said this morning he will vote for strikes regardless, albeit he is no longer in the Shadow Cabinet
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Being a lazy git I didn't see Corbyn this morning but it looks like a very direct challenge to Benn and his ilk. I really don't see how Benn can remain in post but then I didn't really see how he could take the position in the first place. This kind of crisis was simply inevitable.
As long as Benn stays in post he is the most likely replacement for Corbyn, if he goes to the backbenches that diminishes dramatically
Not if by staying in post he makes himself look weak and ridiculous. I don't personally see how he can avoid that now.
He will presumably still vote for strikes as he claims they now have the backing of the UN, so if he sticks to his guns and does not vote against then that does not follow, if Labour does have a free vote then that is even more the case
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It'll be interesting to see what the Chilcot report says on this, but in some ways you cannot blame the western countries for not believing (or believing the worst of) Iraq. They'd started two wars (Iran-Iraq and the Kuwait invasion), and had shown no hesitation to use chemical weapons to prosecute war or subdue internal dissent.
After their defeat in 1991, they did not meet their agreed obligations and tried to frustrate the weapons inspectors at every step. Several missile attacks were launched at Iraq in 1993, 1996 and 1998 for various reasons, such as his suppression of the Kurds and the assassination attempt on George Bush.
They were not trustworthy, so we didn't trust them. And perhaps that, more than anything else, is why we went to war.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
I flipping hate Corbyn. I had written the afternoon thread based on the Ladbrokes next out of the shadow cabinet market.
After his interview this morning, they've pulled the market.
He has won them over
@paulwaugh: One Shad Cabinet waverer on Syria now less likely to vote for military action after seeing Corbyn set out his line on #marrshow. Others too?
I flipping hate Corbyn. I had written the afternoon thread based on the Ladbrokes next out of the shadow cabinet market.
After his interview this morning, they've pulled the market.
He has won them over
@paulwaugh: One Shad Cabinet waverer on Syria now less likely to vote for military action after seeing Corbyn set out his line on #marrshow. Others too?
Nobody needs to resign. Everything is fine...
Question is really if there are waverers then could Cameron risk it and be defeated a second time. In these type of decisions I would much prefer consensus across the parties before the order goes out to the front lines. Without a consensus it can still be done with a majority but it would infer that it is halfhearted and more than reluctant at worse.
No one really wants to commence a military action, the military the politicians and even joe public. There are some exceptions to that rule of course but when all else has failed then sometimes there is little options left. I do not believe for a minute that ISIS will even come to a negotiation table and their whole reason for being is the removal of Western civilisation as we know it.
It leaves you in the unenviable position of having the course of last resort and quite simply you either roll over and accept casualties or you fight back. It's similar to a AA gunner trying to negotiate with the " divine wind " before finally pulling the trigger. It's a hopeless case when your enemy has already decided a course of action and will not be deflected from that whatever is done.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It is pretty clear Blair (and the Americans) did genuinely believe Saddam had WMDs, as after the war our troops and then the Iraq Survey Group were sent in to dig up Iraq looking for them. It was years later that Blair's spin line morphed into not needing to apologise for removing Saddam.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It is pretty clear Blair (and the Americans) did genuinely believe Saddam had WMDs, as after the war our troops and then the Iraq Survey Group were sent in to dig up Iraq looking for them. It was years later that Blair's spin line morphed into not needing to apologise for removing Saddam.
Hans Blix never believed it and Pleaded for more time to make the case. That's before me get to DR. kelly of course....
The sun actually nicked that headline which had previously ended 'airdire are atrocious' . Not sure whether it had actually appeared in a paper or was apocryphal, but had been in a indie article about classic football headlines a year or two before.
My favourite was about the Brazilian international who had not returned to Boro after an international break and was rumoured to be agitating for a transfer to Italy:
Is it possible that the report is being delayed because there is "unfinished business" in the ME like Syria that may require further action and Chilcott could complicate that further?
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It'll be interesting to see what the Chilcot report says on this, but in some ways you cannot blame the western countries for not believing (or believing the worst of) Iraq. They'd started two wars (Iran-Iraq and the Kuwait invasion), and had shown no hesitation to use chemical weapons to prosecute war or subdue internal dissent.
After their defeat in 1991, they did not meet their agreed obligations and tried to frustrate the weapons inspectors at every step. Several missile attacks were launched at Iraq in 1993, 1996 and 1998 for various reasons, such as his suppression of the Kurds and the assassination attempt on George Bush.
They were not trustworthy, so we didn't trust them. And perhaps that, more than anything else, is why we went to war.
Indeed. Would he really have never tried to get WMDs back?
The sun actually nicked that headline which had previously ended 'airdire are atrocious' . Not sure whether it had actually appeared in a paper or was apocryphal, but had been in a indie article about classic football headlines a year or two before.
My favourite was about the Brazilian international who had not returned to Boro after an international break and was rumoured to be agitating for a transfer to Italy:
Emerson late, and Parma?
V good.. I didn't know The Sun had nicked the Caley one... funny all the same
Is it possible that the report is being delayed because there is "unfinished business" in the ME like Syria that may require further action and Chilcott could complicate that further?
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It is pretty clear Blair (and the Americans) did genuinely believe Saddam had WMDs, as after the war our troops and then the Iraq Survey Group were sent in to dig up Iraq looking for them. It was years later that Blair's spin line morphed into not needing to apologise for removing Saddam.
Hans Blix never believed it and Pleaded for more time to make the case. That's before me get to DR. kelly of course....
Faith trumps evidence, or rather lack of evidence. Of course Blair was wrong: that much is obvious now and was clear to many at the time. But politics (and business and even medicine) often still depends on faith-based intuition. Look how few government policies, on either side, bothered with pilot schemes.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It is pretty clear Blair (and the Americans) did genuinely believe Saddam had WMDs, as after the war our troops and then the Iraq Survey Group were sent in to dig up Iraq looking for them. It was years later that Blair's spin line morphed into not needing to apologise for removing Saddam.
Hans Blix never believed it and Pleaded for more time to make the case. That's before me get to DR. kelly of course....
I was always a sceptic because Robin Cook who had been Foreign Secretary and would have seen all the briefings was clear that in his view there weren't any. As well as being eloquent he was a very intellectually vain man and it was most unlikely he would have been so adamant and put himself in a position of looking foolish later.
I think Blair had probably convinced himself there were WMDs, but was in his messianic phase by then and could have convinced himself of anything.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
As I have said before - belief in the symmetry of war aims is a recurring problem in the study of history. Many serious historians fall for it, along with the The-Big-Guys-Were-Too-Smart-To-BelieveIn-X fallacy.
Not long ago I had a chat with a history lecturer about Henry VIII (he was actually a 20th Cent specialist). He could not get his head round the idea that Henry was a devout Christian all his life, who really believed. Or that the other Kings in Europe took it seriously either. To him, since he didn't believe in it, no other intelligent person could either.
I've met quite a few people who, when the stated aims of ISIS are explained to them, say that this can't be true. When you explain that they are literally trying to enact a scenario from the Koran - you get accused of being racist!
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It is pretty clear Blair (and the Americans) did genuinely believe Saddam had WMDs, as after the war our troops and then the Iraq Survey Group were sent in to dig up Iraq looking for them. It was years later that Blair's spin line morphed into not needing to apologise for removing Saddam.
Hans Blix never believed it and Pleaded for more time to make the case. That's before me get to DR. kelly of course....
The question that should have been asked was - "Ok. 45 minutes. Can reach Cyprus. Which page in Janes is the launcher on?"
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important.
FFS, Blair was a scumbag but politicians lie all the time and wars are usually based on lies. You'd have to be a right gullible twonk to believe that because Blair was saying it at the time, it must be true. (Present company excepted.)
I'm not convinced Blair was lying. If he was genuinely convinced Saddam was a threat he was deluded, but not lying.
It is pretty clear Blair (and the Americans) did genuinely believe Saddam had WMDs, as after the war our troops and then the Iraq Survey Group were sent in to dig up Iraq looking for them. It was years later that Blair's spin line morphed into not needing to apologise for removing Saddam.
Hans Blix never believed it and Pleaded for more time to make the case. That's before me get to DR. kelly of course....
Despite usually hating the TV ads of Bookmakers, I must say the new Bet Victor effort is different class
Will they take a bet though? They even closed me down and I'm no OGH.
I used to work for them in 2000 and they took some big bets in those days, but I don't think any bookmaker takes a decent bet now really, unless it's from a muggerooni
I've met quite a few people who, when the stated aims of ISIS are explained to them, say that this can't be true. When you explain that they are literally trying to enact a scenario from the Koran - you get accused of being racist!
Yes. It's almost worth sending ground troops in to entice them to the plains of Dabiq and then seeing the disappointment in their faces as Jesus fails to ride in and save the mujahideen from obliteration
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
Judging from accounts in PPRune and elsewhere concerning what the UK has been doing in Iraq vs ISIS, the plan is to use air power for CAS, with some targeting of leadership. That is, most of the strikes will be in concert with locals on the ground making a push. The war is largely house to house/trench to trench. In such a circumstance, taking out a small number of strong point/heavy weapons turns an attack from a bloodbath that fails in 10 yards to a fairly certain victory. This, by the way, is where Brimstone *system* comes in. It has the capability to create a simultaneous group of hits on defined targets.
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
Labour MPs "privately sharing graphics from Hillary Clinton’s US Presidential campaign asking if colleagues are 'Ready for Hillary'. The images are a less-than-subtle code by Benn supporters as they try to find out if he has the support of the backbenches." http://www.sunnation.co.uk/jez-enemies-clinton-plot/
This is fascinating - British Cabinet papers from 1957 reveal this is not the first time the US has tried to 'regime-change' Syria, and not the first time Russia tried to stop them, and not the first time Britain had reservations!
- 'No wonder, the secret papers reveal British apprehension that such a campaign would only help to depict Syria "… as an innocent victim of a threatened aggression by the United States, United Kingdom and France, who were using reactionary Arab regimes to serve their imperialist aims of crushing Arab nationalism in the interests of oil companies and Israel." '
''ts possible that if the Russians hadn't been so badly organised in their invasion of East Prussia then the Great War would indeed have been over by Christmas.''
Over estimation of russian capability was a key factor in WW1. It emboldened a France smarting after the indignities of 1870.
The desperate attempt by France to restore its prestige was, in my view, a prime mover in WW1.
So France invaded Germany and Belgium did they and not the other way around? Silly me.
Comments
If the numbers are to great in the PLP not to suuport him over syria.
Then he resigns at least on a matter of his own principle.
But the choice was dreadfull , whatever southam on here says about the rest would now be doing better.
If Jarvis and Chuka were so concerned they should have stood.
At this stage, I'd favour front benches having to vote with the party line, but backbench MPs having a free vote.
Long-term, the best thing for Cameron and the Conservatives (although not the country) might be this getting voted down, or Cameron declaring that he doesn't think it will pass because of Corbyn's intransigence. Then, when there is an ISIS-inspired attack here in the UK (and sadly it will be a 'when') the media and many of the public will blame Corbyn.
In fact, it might be more of an effect than people blaming the government when there is an attack *after* action.
But that would be intolerable case of playing with this issue for political ends ...
He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role.
I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Fair enough and thanks.
If Rentoul is correct then why, in the words of the Guardian, is this vote a 'gamble?'
Its not a gamble at all.
Bombing ISIS is Syria is another matter. As Rod Liddle notes in the STimes - we may as well bomb Luton.
BTW - the STimes today has some great features/columns - well worth buying a copy.
Hey, thats not such a bad idea, providing we use only smart bombs.
True, but I sense there is something more. Conservative back benchers are not happy with Cameron and Osborne. They are unhappy with the Clarke thing. the big gamble Osborne is taking with the nation's finances, and the awful immigration stats.
You are Rebekah Brooks and I claim my five pounds.....
It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
The horrors of modern warfare were unknown, and the glories of long-past battles overspun. For too many countries, a war was seen as a way of gaining, not losing.
Something would have sparked off the conflict, and as the major power we were always going to get dragged in.
P'haps.
By the way Are you completely incapable of posting anything without a constant tirade of abuse to every other poster on here?
Oh and for the record ..... I am x military so don't need any lessons thanks.
I'm 99% sure they're just numbers Farage plucked out of thin air.
If not he resigns.
Either way it can not go on like this with the shadow cabinet undermining him at every occasion, then complaining when he goes out to the membership for their views.
The choice in 1939 was either fight or make peace with Hitler. Such a peace, as Russia found out, was not worth the paper it was written on.
In truth, the choice was fight or be subsumed into the Nazi state, as Churchill correctly realised.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
How Crap is Ed Miliband?
a) crap
b) very crap
c) Ed-stone crap
d) OMFG!!!!!! We have done so badly we can get our party back!!! Whooooopeeeee!
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
I can't talk about Alliance Medical in too much detail. But NHS England re-tendered four regions nationally with individual NHS trusts invited to tender. And they decided that Alliance Medical's proposition was the most attractive. They had a very specific proposition which I think will significant improve disease management and treatment protocols.
But perhaps you don't think that the Christie - as a leading global expert - should have a leading role in cancer imaging services on a nationwide basis but would rather it was handled by a local trust.
Or is it as yesterday where you have based your entire claim on the "it stands to reason dun it" type of approach of the pub bore.
And it's clearly not over yet. They're partying like it's 1983.
Yes, the American Civil War would have been a better pointer
Corbyn seems drunk on his own power.
http://news.sky.com/story/1596477/corbyn-only-i-will-decide-on-syria-vote
This is the point at which 7 day 24 hour state of the art services meets local hospital closures. Thay is part of the electoral minefield that Jeremy Hunt is wandering about in. He is either being foolish or mendacious in not making this clear.
If the Germans lose at Tannenburg then their position is strategically hopeless.
After his interview this morning, they've pulled the market.
Did anyone see Monday's Dispatches on Ch4? That's our real problem, it's on our doorstep
@paulwaugh: One Shad Cabinet waverer on Syria now less likely to vote for military action after seeing Corbyn set out his line on #marrshow. Others too?
Nobody needs to resign. Everything is fine...
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
Then he has a chance of getting a shadow cabinet, that might back his positions.
Make them make a decision.
Then eirther he stays or goes.
You just repeat your mantra on every post, of doing nothing.
Which is becoming boring.
Over estimation of russian capability was a key factor in WW1. It emboldened a France smarting after the indignities of 1870.
The desperate attempt by France to restore its prestige was, in my view, a prime mover in WW1.
After their defeat in 1991, they did not meet their agreed obligations and tried to frustrate the weapons inspectors at every step. Several missile attacks were launched at Iraq in 1993, 1996 and 1998 for various reasons, such as his suppression of the Kurds and the assassination attempt on George Bush.
They were not trustworthy, so we didn't trust them. And perhaps that, more than anything else, is why we went to war.
No one really wants to commence a military action, the military the politicians and even joe public. There are some exceptions to that rule of course but when all else has failed then sometimes there is little options left. I do not believe for a minute that ISIS will even come to a negotiation table and their whole reason for being is the removal of Western civilisation as we know it.
It leaves you in the unenviable position of having the course of last resort and quite simply you either roll over and accept casualties or you fight back. It's similar to a AA gunner trying to negotiate with the " divine wind " before finally pulling the trigger. It's a hopeless case when your enemy has already decided a course of action and will not be deflected from that whatever is done.
http://tinyurl.com/nep74sx
Leigh Griffiths FGS ew 10/3 is the bet I think
My favourite was about the Brazilian international who had not returned to Boro after an international break and was rumoured to be agitating for a transfer to Italy:
Emerson late, and Parma?
* dons tin foil hat*
Is it possible that the report is being delayed because there is "unfinished business" in the ME like Syria that may require further action and Chilcott could complicate that further?
*returns time foil hat to hatstand*
Will Chilcott be more believable than Hutton or Warren Commission
/tinfoilmodeoff
I think Blair had probably convinced himself there were WMDs, but was in his messianic phase by then and could have convinced himself of anything.
Not long ago I had a chat with a history lecturer about Henry VIII (he was actually a 20th Cent specialist). He could not get his head round the idea that Henry was a devout Christian all his life, who really believed. Or that the other Kings in Europe took it seriously either. To him, since he didn't believe in it, no other intelligent person could either.
I've met quite a few people who, when the stated aims of ISIS are explained to them, say that this can't be true. When you explain that they are literally trying to enact a scenario from the Koran - you get accused of being racist!
I've met quite a few people who, when the stated aims of ISIS are explained to them, say that this can't be true. When you explain that they are literally trying to enact a scenario from the Koran - you get accused of being racist!
Yes. It's almost worth sending ground troops in to entice them to the plains of Dabiq and then seeing the disappointment in their faces as Jesus fails to ride in and save the mujahideen from obliteration
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/jez-enemies-clinton-plot/
- 'No wonder, the secret papers reveal British apprehension that such a campaign would only help to depict Syria "… as an innocent victim of a threatened aggression by the United States, United Kingdom and France, who were using reactionary Arab regimes to serve their imperialist aims of crushing Arab nationalism in the interests of oil companies and Israel." '
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20151030/1029356237/secret-uk-papers-syria-russian-role.html#ixzz3sqVx1nJg
There really is nothing new under the sun.