It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
Don't forget he's also been lucky with his opposition. Still, can only beat what's in front you I guess.
So Isam let me get this straight. You agree with what Cameron said, you agree it's effective, you agree that it's his job to try and win support for what he is proposing.
But you disagree as attacking opponents is a bad thing?
We are about as likely to see flying pigs as we are to see political opponents not be attacked in honest and effective ways when it is appropriate.
I agree that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, but you certainly haven't got anything else straight
The comparison that comes to mind is "Don't say anything about the paedos in Rotherham else you're on the same side as Nick Griffin"
He should make the case for the air strikes without resorting to guilt by association. It's not as if the Conservative MP's he was speaking to are children, so why use playground tactics?
We have no proof whatsoever that it has been effective in allowing us to bomb Syria
Griffin isn't Leader of the Opposition. Jezbollah is.
As to why use what you refer to as playground tactics? Because they work. Because they've always been used. Expecting politicians not to attack opponents is naive not enlightened.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
I know many who voted UKIP at the Euros and switched back to the Tories at the general election as the thought of an anti-aspiration/wealth Labour + SNP coalition was terrifying to them. Heck I even know Labour voters who voted Tory for the same reason.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
Here is a range of reasons why the two are different with no particular partiality indicated
-It's against international law without a request for help from the Syrian Government. In Iraq, we have permission (I assume?). We may not like this law, but that's the point - these laws are there for when people don't like them, such as the Falklander's right to self-determination
-In Iraq, the mission is presumably to help Iraqi government forces roll back ISIS' territorial gains. In Syria, we don't support the Government, so we don't have clear aims, or a credible plan for what fills the ISIS vacuum.
-Syria isn't just a civil war, it's a proxy war between regional and international powers. We should not leap with abandon into what could be the cauldron of World War III, and indeed our refusal to do so may have a useful restraining effect upon other nations who would.
-Not only is the situation complex geopolitically, it's just as complex practically, with the air full of different nation's planes, all semi-co-operating, not co-operating, communicating (a bit) etc. Look at Russia's jet that got shot down - it's an airborne rugby scrum
-I understand that Iraq is the 'harder' of the two, but since we're already there, and one assumes that our contribution is still 'needed', we can have the same material effect by simply upping our commitment there and avoiding the Syria sh*tfest. As long as we're blowing up ISIS, I don't see how we casn be reproached.
So Isam let me get this straight. You agree with what Cameron said, you agree it's effective, you agree that it's his job to try and win support for what he is proposing.
But you disagree as attacking opponents is a bad thing?
We are about as likely to see flying pigs as we are to see political opponents not be attacked in honest and effective ways when it is appropriate.
I agree that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, but you certainly haven't got anything else straight
The comparison that comes to mind is "Don't say anything about the paedos in Rotherham else you're on the same side as Nick Griffin"
He should make the case for the air strikes without resorting to guilt by association. It's not as if the Conservative MP's he was speaking to are children, so why use playground tactics?
We have no proof whatsoever that it has been effective in allowing us to bomb Syria
Griffin isn't Leader of the Opposition. Jezbollah is.
As to why use what you refer to as playground tactics? Because they work. Because they've always been used. Expecting politicians not to attack opponents is naive not enlightened.
Well we will have our answer as to whether they worked this time soon enough
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
Don't forget he's also been lucky with his opposition. Still, can only beat what's in front you I guess.
In politics luck runs out, without exception, when Dave hits the wall it'll be spectacular because he has no principles, no fall back position.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
-It's against international law
I'm sure lawyers will correct me, but given how practically all nations insist that pretty much whatever they do is somehow in accordance with international law, it feels as a layman that whether something is or is not against it is pretty meaningless.
what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Umm, that's the point. Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser by his own admission, and the PLP are solidly with him.
Election leaflets write themselves
Silly me, I had thought Cameron had hoped to combine politics with what he saw as the national need by building a big consensus on Syria while also wounding Corbyn. Instead we have Labour possibly wounded and no big consensus at all.
You expected him to reach consensus with the terrorist sympathiser? I think he tried but clearly that was impossible so next best option is to go for the jugular.
Or maybe he could have given him flowers?
I assumed he wanted as many MPs as possible to support him on this, and apparently his blunt comments on Corbyn may have cost him some support, to no more gain than he would have had from not saying it (Corbyn is still leader and most Lab MPs will probably back him or abstain, so Cameron could still paint them all as being like him). No he couldn't get Corbyn on board, the man would not have agreed if Karl Marx rose from the dead to give it the ok, he is resolute, but others were amenable.
He wants a majority. I expect he'll get a majority.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
I know many who voted UKIP at the Euros and switched back to the Tories at the general election as the thought of an anti-aspiration/wealth Labour + SNP coalition was terrifying to them. Heck I even know Labour voters who voted Tory for the same reason.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
Here is a range of reasons why the two are different with no particular partiality indicated
-It's against international law without a request for help from the Syrian Government. In Iraq, we have permission (I assume?). We may not like this law, but that's the point - these laws are there for when people don't like them, such as the Falklander's right to self-determination
-In Iraq, the mission is presumably to help Iraqi government forces roll back ISIS' territorial gains. In Syria, we don't support the Government, so we don't have clear aims, or a credible plan for what fills the ISIS vacuum.
-Syria isn't just a civil war, it's a proxy war between regional and international powers. We should not leap with abandon into what could be the cauldron of World War III, and indeed our refusal to do so may have a useful restraining effect upon other nations who would.
-Not only is the situation complex geopolitically, it's just as complex practically, with the air full of different nation's planes, all semi-co-operating, not co-operating, communicating (a bit) etc. Look at Russia's jet that got shot down - it's an airborne rugby scrum
-I understand that Iraq is the 'harder' of the two, but since we're already there, and one assumes that our contribution is still 'needed', we can have the same material effect by simply upping our commitment there and avoiding the Syria sh*tfest. As long as we're blowing up ISIS, I don't see how we casn be reproached.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
I don't think anyone thinks he's the messiah. Certainly Kippers and Corbynites are much more sycophantic towards their respective leaders than any Conservatives are.
But it's true that Cameron is a very good politician and the best PM for half a century, apart from the very special case of Maggie, as a few minutes running through the other possible contenders immediately makes clear. Realists will accept this as not a bad recommendation in an imperfect world.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
-It's against international law
I'm sure lawyers will correct me, but given how practically all nations insist that pretty much whatever they do is somehow in accordance with international law, it feels as a layman that whether something is or is not against it is pretty meaningless.
It depends to what extent you accept the concept of "international law".
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
It really is vile. I can't watch it. It's the same as his attitude to the 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' of UKIP, or his vow before the UN to combat 'non-violent extremists' (people who don't disagree with his world view essentially) as well as violent ones - Cameron (on the advice of his American managers) has deliberately polarised the political debate and made it ok to hate those who disagree with his agenda. It's chilling, incredibly un-British, and those 'Cameron-sympathisers' who support him should beware of the day when something they believe or hold dear puts them on the wrong side of it.
Dave has been eating too much fruitcake. It causes the chilons in his brain minerals to expand thus creating an explosion of haggisy vileness in the food-reverence sacred-ness. Am I getting the hang of this?
I wish you'd posted this earlier before bedtime (school night) - I love any invitation to talk food stuff even if people do think I'm bonkers.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
I don't think anyone thinks he's the messiah. Certainly Kippers and Corbynites are much more sycophantic towards their respective leaders than any Conservatives are.
But it's true that Cameron is a very good politician and the best PM for half a century, apart from the very special case of Maggie, as a few minutes running through the other possible contenders immediately makes clear. Realists will accept this as not a bad recommendation in an imperfect world.
Foreign students could be excluded from official migration figures, George Osborne indicated, in a move that would see the total number of declared migrants in the UK fall but could lead to claims that the Government is attempting to massage the statistics.
In an assault on Theresa May’s policy brief, the Chancellor said that the public is concerned only about “permanent” migrants and suggested the statistics should be changed.
He also slapped down proposals said to have been prepared by Mrs May for tougher language tests and greater savings requirements for student visa applicants, saying they were not government policy and would not take place.
I'm not sure people are thinking this thing through. Cameron is going to win the vote. The LibDems and DUP will vote with him. There may be a very small number of outright Labour rebels, but I imagine a significant number will abstain. He's got public opinion on his side so he doesn't particularly need to fear the issue becoming polarising along party political grounds - it'll just cost Labour votes. It is leaving Hilary Benn looking like being in a horrible position - having had it trailed everywhere that he would be winding up the debate and speaking in favour, he is going to look absolutely ridiculous if he gets no backbench support, possibly will have to resign. And i think it is quite important, politically, to firmly establish in the public mind that the opposition from the Labour leadership is not principled and considered.
Furthermore he is only saying what large numbers of Labour MPs secretly believe. They will be furious that he is driving them towards Corbyn, because if they oppose him they will be hounded for making those secret beliefs public.
It would only be a problem if he might lose the vote. But that's not going to happen i think. Labour will just come out of it more divided than ever, but more tied to Corbyn's leadership than before.
Of course under Corbyn they will do less well in real elections, and especially the GE, than in opinion polls. It's one thing supporting Labour as an abstract concept, quite another putting an X on a ballot box which might lead to Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone running the country.
@elliotttimes: Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment has cost 20 Labour MPs already suggests a well-placed source. Touch of the Flashman.
Foolish. Corbyn looking stronger by the hour. Wouldn't be surprised by only a few dozen Lab supporters of the motion now. If all he wanted was the motion to pass, he can get it, but beyond that, what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Well, it ties those Labour MPs to a toxic leader. I thought that was part of the Tory strategy: to tar Labour - all of Labour - with the toxicity of Corbyn and McDonnell et al so that even when they go the Labour brand is tarnished by their brand of extremism.
Whether it's the sensible thing to do re the vote is another matter. Honey is better than vinegar at catching wasps. But it may be at this point that Cameron feels that Labour MPs - even those who claim to be against Corbyn - are simply too unreliable or too scared to put their heads above the parapet. He can show allies that he has tried his best. And he can point to Labour as the stumbling block. I doubt that the French or the Americans or other countries will be particularly impressed by the way Labour are behaving.
It may be that at this point Mr Cameron is knackered and is is losing his diplomatic instinct.
Possible. He may also be furious. An important decision held hostage to the civil war going on in Labour and the willy waving contest between superannuated Trots on the one hand and shell-shocked MPs on the other.
He receives the intelligence. He must dread something like Paris happening here and worrying that the government is not doing enough and that it will be inevitably blamed and seeing the opposition refusing to behave like grown ups and not acting in good faith about the most important duty of any government.
God knows what intelligence he has received about some of Corbyn's friends. There was an interesting story the other day about the Palestine Solidarity Campaign account being closed by the Co-op. Anyone interested in this should look at the Suspicious Activity Report regime under the Proceeds of Crime Act. One point to note is how wide its remit is. I suspect that there will be a lot of accounts reported to the authorities and being monitored by them linked to current MPs. The NCA and other authorities are, from my work experience, absolutely focused on terrorist financing at the moment.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
Here is a range of reasons why the two are different with no particular partiality indicated
-It's against international law without a request for help from the Syrian Government. In Iraq, we have permission (I assume?). We may not like this law, but that's the point - these laws are there for when people don't like them, such as the Falklander's right to self-determination
-In Iraq, the mission is presumably to help Iraqi government forces roll back ISIS' territorial gains. In Syria, we don't support the Government, so we don't have clear aims, or a credible plan for what fills the ISIS vacuum.
-Syria isn't just a civil war, it's a proxy war between regional and international powers. We should not leap with abandon into what could be the cauldron of World War III, and indeed our refusal to do so may have a useful restraining effect upon other nations who would.
-Not only is the situation complex geopolitically, it's just as complex practically, with the air full of different nation's planes, all semi-co-operating, not co-operating, communicating (a bit) etc. Look at Russia's jet that got shot down - it's an airborne rugby scrum
-I understand that Iraq is the 'harder' of the two, but since we're already there, and one assumes that our contribution is still 'needed', we can have the same material effect by simply upping our commitment there and avoiding the Syria sh*tfest. As long as we're blowing up ISIS, I don't see how we casn be reproached.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
Here is a range of reasons why the two are different with no particular partiality indicated
-It's against international law without a request for help from the Syrian Government. In Iraq, we have permission (I assume?). We may not like this law, but that's the point - these laws are there for when people don't like them, such as the Falklander's right to self-determination
Bull.
If the UNSC authorises action it is legal that is undisputed international law. What is disputed is when action is legal without UNSC backing. The UNSC has passed a resolution backing military action unanimously therefore it is unquestionably legal. The Argentines didn't invade the Falklands because they had UNSC backing so this is an absurd comparison.
Even without a UNSC resolution it would be legal under the principle of self defence following the claimed attack on France and the French request for support. But either way it is unquestionably legal.
There were a number of Labour MPs who openly stated they had not yet made their minds up,Toby Perkins for one,a supporter of Liz Kendall and a sel-proclaimed moderate..I suggest Cameron's remarks re "terrorist sympathisers" will make Toby's mind up for him,and a few others.He will lose support for his remarks,a foolish and reckless act of hubris. As for the poll summary,Labour are set to win Oldham by 3 and a bit%,according to the PB wisdom index, a most reliable betting tool.
Mr Llama: I did one of my diversity talks today. True diversity not the bollocks diversity with a capital D you no doubt had to put up with. It is a shame that it was private and not open to the public. I think you would have enjoyed it. One day, one day......
I could put my funeral suit on, carry a clipboard type folder and sit at the back pretending to be an external verifier, if that would help.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
-It's against international law
I'm sure lawyers will correct me, but given how practically all nations insist that pretty much whatever they do is somehow in accordance with international law, it feels as a layman that whether something is or is not against it is pretty meaningless.
Well put it this way, if Russia feels that some injustice has been done to the people of Scunthorpe, and decides to intervene with a bombing campaign on their behalf, this would be an illegal violation of British sovereignty under UN law.
Were we to work with Assad, we could probably obtain Syrian permission. We won't (not because we care about the children - like that's ever stopped the US supporting a dictator), but because this is about rival pipelines and geopolitical influence. US and EU policy is that Assad just CANNOT stay. Russian policy is that he CANNOT go. This is what makes the situation so dangerous.
Best Prime Minister. The guy (they are all guys apart from Maggie) who most deftly juggled the difficult decisions he was faced with.
That's lame, what difficult decisions?
The difficult decisions which were applicable at the time. For example, Harold Wilson was quite a good PM in some ways (mainly thanks to Roy Jenkins' social reforms), but overall has to be seen as a disaster because he flunked the most glaring problem facing the country at the time.
But feel free to argue in favour of some other contender. Brown, Heath, Blair, Major, for example.
So Isam let me get this straight. You agree with what Cameron said, you agree it's effective, you agree that it's his job to try and win support for what he is proposing.
But you disagree as attacking opponents is a bad thing?
We are about as likely to see flying pigs as we are to see political opponents not be attacked in honest and effective ways when it is appropriate.
I agree that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, but you certainly haven't got anything else straight
The comparison that comes to mind is "Don't say anything about the paedos in Rotherham else you're on the same side as Nick Griffin"
He should make the case for the air strikes without resorting to guilt by association. It's not as if the Conservative MP's he was speaking to are children, so why use playground tactics?
We have no proof whatsoever that it has been effective in allowing us to bomb Syria
Griffin isn't Leader of the Opposition. Jezbollah is.
As to why use what you refer to as playground tactics? Because they work. Because they've always been used. Expecting politicians not to attack opponents is naive not enlightened.
Well we will have our answer as to whether they worked this time soon enough
Agreed. I would define worked as any majority combined with this being out there. I would define failed as losing the vote.
Best Prime Minister. The guy (they are all guys apart from Maggie) who most deftly juggled the difficult decisions he was faced with.
That's lame, what difficult decisions?
The difficult decisions which were applicable at the time. For example, Harold Wilson was quite a good PM in some ways (mainly thanks to Roy Jenkins' social reforms), but overall has to be seen as a disaster because he flunked the most glaring problem facing the country at the time.
But feel free to argue in favour of some other contender. Brown, Heath, Blair, Major, for example.
Even lamer, you still can't give an example of a difficult decision he's had to make.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
-It's against international law
I'm sure lawyers will correct me, but given how practically all nations insist that pretty much whatever they do is somehow in accordance with international law, it feels as a layman that whether something is or is not against it is pretty meaningless.
Well put it this way, if Russia feels that some injustice has been done to the people of Scunthorpe, and decides to intervene with a bombing campaign on their behalf, this would be an illegal violation of British sovereignty under UN law.
Were we to work with Assad, we could probably obtain Syrian permission. We won't (not because we care about the children - like that's ever stopped the US supporting a dictator), but because this is about rival pipelines and geopolitical influence. US and EU policy is that Assad just CANNOT stay. Russian policy is that he CANNOT go. This is what makes the situation so dangerous.
And with that, good night!
Any bombing is a slippery slope to other involvement, and if so we need allies on the ground. Either we should make an overt alliance with Assads regime and support it with any means nessecary or we should stay clear.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
-It's against international law
I'm sure lawyers will correct me, but given how practically all nations insist that pretty much whatever they do is somehow in accordance with international law, it feels as a layman that whether something is or is not against it is pretty meaningless.
Well put it this way, if Russia feels that some injustice has been done to the people of Scunthorpe, and decides to intervene with a bombing campaign on their behalf, this would be an illegal violation of British sovereignty under UN law.
Were we to work with Assad, we could probably obtain Syrian permission. We won't (not because we care about the children - like that's ever stopped the US supporting a dictator), but because this is about rival pipelines and geopolitical influence. US and EU policy is that Assad just CANNOT stay. Russian policy is that he CANNOT go. This is what makes the situation so dangerous.
And with that, good night!
This makes no sense. UN law is made by the Security Council (or in exceptional circumstances - the General Assembly - Korean War). If the Security Council votes for it, it's legal.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
I winced at it as well. But it was the first proper strike of the election campaign, the tories knew that him stabbing his brother in the back was one of the few things that people knew about Ed, and didn't like him for it.
It's weird, being willing to stand for the leadership even though his brother was an obvious candidate was one of the things I liked about Ed M. Maybe it's because I too am a younger brother.
· The gender gap has widened. Now men favour airstrikes by more than two-to-one (58-26 per cent), while women divide evenly: 39-36 per cent.
· Those who voted Labour in May have switched from backing military action by 52-26 per cent a week ago, to opposing it, by 42-35 per cent today
Labour are fucked, aren't they.
I don't know. Myself, I've given up on Labour: it's like watching a meth addict beg for money, saddening and repulsive. Corbyn's approval ratings make Nick Clegg's look like the Great British Bake-Off. Labour's poll ratings are steadily falling at a time in the electoral cycle when they should be rising. All of this points to a spectacular kicking in 2020.
But one should be careful not to extrapolate too far: it's still four-plus years to May 2020, we have EU ref, Cameron's resignation, divers events to come. The public may yet conclude that a terrorist sympathiser with a manhole fetish leading a party at war with its own MPs is the person they want to be Prime Minister. We live in a world where Tsipras is Prime Minister of Greece and Trump may yet be POTUS. Crazy times...
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
-It's against international law
I'm sure lawyers will correct me, but given how practically all nations insist that pretty much whatever they do is somehow in accordance with international law, it feels as a layman that whether something is or is not against it is pretty meaningless.
Well put it this way, if Russia feels that some injustice has been done to the people of Scunthorpe, and decides to intervene with a bombing campaign on their behalf, this would be an illegal violation of British sovereignty under UN law.
Were we to work with Assad, we could probably obtain Syrian permission. We won't (not because we care about the children - like that's ever stopped the US supporting a dictator), but because this is about rival pipelines and geopolitical influence. US and EU policy is that Assad just CANNOT stay. Russian policy is that he CANNOT go. This is what makes the situation so dangerous.
And with that, good night!
Indeed it would unless Russia was acting with UNSC blessing under IIRC Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. We are. To claim action authorised by a UNSC resolution is illegal under UN laws is ignorant. Read the UN Charter we don't need Syrian blessing since we have UNSC blessing.
Best Prime Minister. The guy (they are all guys apart from Maggie) who most deftly juggled the difficult decisions he was faced with.
That's lame, what difficult decisions?
The difficult decisions which were applicable at the time. For example, Harold Wilson was quite a good PM in some ways (mainly thanks to Roy Jenkins' social reforms), but overall has to be seen as a disaster because he flunked the most glaring problem facing the country at the time.
But feel free to argue in favour of some other contender. Brown, Heath, Blair, Major, for example.
I'll go with Major being a better PM (certainly not a better politician). Simply because he left the country in a good state. Not all his doing, but still. Manufacturing up, agriculture up, productivity up - we really were booming. Shame it coincided with the country having had enough.
If the UNSC authorises action it is legal that is undisputed international law. What is disputed is when action is legal without UNSC backing. The UNSC has passed a resolution backing military action unanimously therefore it is unquestionably legal.
Slight clarification. There are many ways, most arguable rather than crystal clear, in which preemptive action in self-defense is legal.
Regardless, a military action becomes legal if the UN Security Council authorizes it while explicitly acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. If it does not have words to the effect of "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter", the UNSCR will not have legal authority to legitimize military action.
Surprisingly, while calling on States that are capable of acting against ISIS to do so and to coordinate efforts, this latest UNSCR (2249 (2015)) is not (NOT) a Chapter VII resolution.
The relevant operative paragraph, absent one noting an action under Chapter VII, is this:
"Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria"
Thus, from a prima facie reading, authority for action relies upon previous resolutions, not this one, and relates to those actions endorsed by the UNSC on 14 November based on the recommendations of the ISSG.
It is an interesting resolution, presumably considerably modified from a French draft (to protect civilians and refugees) by the Russians (to add protections to the Assad regime - the references to international law and the UN Charter). It shouts out, between the lines, that any action is to be quite overtly constrained action.
The references to humanitarian law in particular remind would be participants to observe proportionality in their actions. All the other references in this context talk to the need to protect civilians and refugees. In essence, they are superfluous references as the need to comply with them would still exist without their mention, but that they are so explicitly highlighted shows some of the concerns in the UNSC debates.
Comments
As to why use what you refer to as playground tactics? Because they work. Because they've always been used. Expecting politicians not to attack opponents is naive not enlightened.
-It's against international law without a request for help from the Syrian Government. In Iraq, we have permission (I assume?). We may not like this law, but that's the point - these laws are there for when people don't like them, such as the Falklander's right to self-determination
-In Iraq, the mission is presumably to help Iraqi government forces roll back ISIS' territorial gains. In Syria, we don't support the Government, so we don't have clear aims, or a credible plan for what fills the ISIS vacuum.
-Syria isn't just a civil war, it's a proxy war between regional and international powers. We should not leap with abandon into what could be the cauldron of World War III, and indeed our refusal to do so may have a useful restraining effect upon other nations who would.
-Not only is the situation complex geopolitically, it's just as complex practically, with the air full of different nation's planes, all semi-co-operating, not co-operating, communicating (a bit) etc. Look at Russia's jet that got shot down - it's an airborne rugby scrum
-I understand that Iraq is the 'harder' of the two, but since we're already there, and one assumes that our contribution is still 'needed', we can have the same material effect by simply upping our commitment there and avoiding the Syria sh*tfest. As long as we're blowing up ISIS, I don't see how we casn be reproached.
But it's true that Cameron is a very good politician and the best PM for half a century, apart from the very special case of Maggie, as a few minutes running through the other possible contenders immediately makes clear. Realists will accept this as not a bad recommendation in an imperfect world.
In an assault on Theresa May’s policy brief, the Chancellor said that the public is concerned only about “permanent” migrants and suggested the statistics should be changed.
He also slapped down proposals said to have been prepared by Mrs May for tougher language tests and greater savings requirements for student visa applicants, saying they were not government policy and would not take place.
http://bit.ly/1ODZekW
Furthermore he is only saying what large numbers of Labour MPs secretly believe. They will be furious that he is driving them towards Corbyn, because if they oppose him they will be hounded for making those secret beliefs public.
It would only be a problem if he might lose the vote. But that's not going to happen i think. Labour will just come out of it more divided than ever, but more tied to Corbyn's leadership than before.
Of course under Corbyn they will do less well in real elections, and especially the GE, than in opinion polls. It's one thing supporting Labour as an abstract concept, quite another putting an X on a ballot box which might lead to Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone running the country.
He receives the intelligence. He must dread something like Paris happening here and worrying that the government is not doing enough and that it will be inevitably blamed and seeing the opposition refusing to behave like grown ups and not acting in good faith about the most important duty of any government.
God knows what intelligence he has received about some of Corbyn's friends. There was an interesting story the other day about the Palestine Solidarity Campaign account being closed by the Co-op. Anyone interested in this should look at the Suspicious Activity Report regime under the Proceeds of Crime Act. One point to note is how wide its remit is. I suspect that there will be a lot of accounts reported to the authorities and being monitored by them linked to current MPs. The NCA and other authorities are, from my work experience, absolutely focused on terrorist financing at the moment.
If the UNSC authorises action it is legal that is undisputed international law. What is disputed is when action is legal without UNSC backing. The UNSC has passed a resolution backing military action unanimously therefore it is unquestionably legal. The Argentines didn't invade the Falklands because they had UNSC backing so this is an absurd comparison.
Even without a UNSC resolution it would be legal under the principle of self defence following the claimed attack on France and the French request for support. But either way it is unquestionably legal.
As for the poll summary,Labour are set to win Oldham by 3 and a bit%,according to the PB wisdom index, a most reliable betting tool.
You don't say
Were we to work with Assad, we could probably obtain Syrian permission. We won't (not because we care about the children - like that's ever stopped the US supporting a dictator), but because this is about rival pipelines and geopolitical influence. US and EU policy is that Assad just CANNOT stay. Russian policy is that he CANNOT go. This is what makes the situation so dangerous.
And with that, good night!
But feel free to argue in favour of some other contender. Brown, Heath, Blair, Major, for example.
The people running the dartford tunnel are chasing foreign drivers for a fortune. It's their own stupid fault for closing the cash tolls.
New Thread New Thread
But one should be careful not to extrapolate too far: it's still four-plus years to May 2020, we have EU ref, Cameron's resignation, divers events to come. The public may yet conclude that a terrorist sympathiser with a manhole fetish leading a party at war with its own MPs is the person they want to be Prime Minister. We live in a world where Tsipras is Prime Minister of Greece and Trump may yet be POTUS. Crazy times...
Regardless, a military action becomes legal if the UN Security Council authorizes it while explicitly acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. If it does not have words to the effect of "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter", the UNSCR will not have legal authority to legitimize military action.
Surprisingly, while calling on States that are capable of acting against ISIS to do so and to coordinate efforts, this latest UNSCR (2249 (2015)) is not (NOT) a Chapter VII resolution.
The relevant operative paragraph, absent one noting an action under Chapter VII, is this:
"Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria"
Thus, from a prima facie reading, authority for action relies upon previous resolutions, not this one, and relates to those actions endorsed by the UNSC on 14 November based on the recommendations of the ISSG.
It is an interesting resolution, presumably considerably modified from a French draft (to protect civilians and refugees) by the Russians (to add protections to the Assad regime - the references to international law and the UN Charter). It shouts out, between the lines, that any action is to be quite overtly constrained action.
The references to humanitarian law in particular remind would be participants to observe proportionality in their actions. All the other references in this context talk to the need to protect civilians and refugees. In essence, they are superfluous references as the need to comply with them would still exist without their mention, but that they are so explicitly highlighted shows some of the concerns in the UNSC debates.