Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Mciahel Goodman]

Blair babes refers to any female MP elected in 97. Means nothing.

She has also advocated for Blair in the past.

 

[sun_tzu]

Mac
MacTaggart was one of those "Blair Babes".

ahhh the blair babes -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Babe
any one of the 96 (out of 101) women who won a seat for Labour in the 1997 election.
So MacTaggart was elected (off an all female shortlist) by her local party - won the election, had a photo took along with 95 other female labour MP's so is forever allied to Blair?

Of course all female shortlists were introduced in 1993 at the annual conference so that part certainly had nothing to do with blair, her local party selected her and that certainly had nothing to do with blair, she won the seat which if you are going to say happened because of blair then by definition every labour MP including corbyn would be a blairite.

so basically because she was in a photo with 95 other female labour MP's she is a blairite - is that your definition?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

She is:

...daughter of a multi-millionaire Tory baronet, educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College. Former minister at the Home Office. In favour of Iraq war and foundation hospitals.

Blairite.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

ahhh the blair babes -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Babe
any one of the 96 (out of 101) women who won a seat for Labour in the 1997 election.
So MacTaggart was elected (off an all female shortlist) by her local party - won the election, had a photo took along with 95 other female labour MP's so is forever allied to Blair?

Of course all female shortlists were introduced in 1993 at the annual conference so that part certainly had nothing to do with blair, her local party selected her and that certainly had nothing to do with blair, she won the seat which if you are going to say happened because of blair then by definition every labour MP including corbyn would be a blairite.

so basically because she was in a photo with 95 other female labour MP's she is a blairite - is that your definition?

Was given ministerial job under Blair's government, supported Iraq war, called for Blair to stand against Gordon Brown in the election.. what am I missing, because that seems very Blairite to me.

 

[bishblaize]

Was given ministerial job under Blair's government, supported Iraq war, called for Blair to stand against Gordon Brown in the election.. what am I missing, because that seems very Blairite to me.

Did she ask for Blair to stand against Brown? When was that?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Did she ask for Blair to stand against Brown? When was that?

Actually, I've misrepresented her there. I thought she did, but apparently she didn't. I take that one back.

 

[Ubik]

He cannot whip the vote in either one of those scenarios, he wouldn't survive the day. The trouble being, a free vote on a matter as serious as going to war is just plain weak, and he's said previously there wouldn't be one. But in the circumstances, it's all he can do.

This was supposed to be a lower hurdle than Trident to get over.

 

[sun_tzu]

He cannot whip the vote in either one of those scenarios, he wouldn't survive the day. The trouble being, a free vote on a matter as serious as going to war is just plain weak, and he's said previously there wouldn't be one. But in the circumstances, it's all he can do.

This was supposed to be a lower hurdle than Trident to get over.

And thats his main problem
This scenario was entirely predictable so he should have always kept the option open and used it to say its a moral decision and all parties should be given a free vote - he could have stuck by his opinion and pressured the conservatives into a free vote whereby we would now be talking about corbyn winning the argument if the conservativesdid give a free vote to their members or we would be focussed on tory rebels if they didn't.
Ruling it out initially was stupid... the letter however that is just pure incompetence.
Trident is going to be far worse than this - though he may well not last long enough (if maingate is late 2016) with a bad by election and then bad local / scottish elections next year he will probably be gone by summer

 

[Ubik]

And thats his main problem
This scenario was entirely predictable so he should have always kept the option open and used it to say its a moral decision and all parties should be given a free vote - he could have stuck by his opinion and pressured the conservatives into a free vote whereby we would now be talking about corbyn winning the argument if the conservativesdid give a free vote to their members or we would be focussed on tory rebels if they didn't.
Ruling it out initially was stupid... the letter however that is just pure incompetence.
Trident is going to be far worse than this - though he may well not last long enough (if maingate is late 2016) with a bad by election and then bad local / scottish elections next year he will probably be gone by summer

I'm surprised at those numbers too, even if it's 50/50 that's over 100 rebels and the previous expectation was 50-60. Unless it's just Corbynites lowering expectations so they can claim they've convinced people over the weekend.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I wonder if we might see our first resignation next week (a PPS most likely), particularly if the Oldham by-election result is a closer than previously expected. Just last week it was reported that Labour's majority could be halved, and matters have likely worsened since that time.

 

[sun_tzu]

I'm surprised at those numbers too, even if it's 50/50 that's over 100 rebels and the previous expectation was 50-60. Unless it's just Corbynites lowering expectations so they can claim they've convinced people over the weekend.

Probably some who will vote with the party whip even though they disagree - probably more who will be ill that day or find some other urgent business to attend to and it may be easier for the party to give them permission to be away rather than try to force them to vote no... so the actual number rebelling will probably not be in the 100's but even 50-60 would be very damaging

 

[Ubik]

Probably some who will vote with the party whip even though they disagree - probably more who will be ill that day or find some other urgent business to attend to and it may be easier for the party to give them permission to be away rather than try to force them to vote no... so the actual number rebelling will probably not be in the 100's but even 50-60 would be very damaging

That's probably true. Though also if it's a free vote, there is no whip and so the numbers in favour of intervention will go up. So his authority looks even further diminished. Rock and a hard place.

 

[bishblaize]

He'll go with a free vote. It'll harm the party massively but it'll let Corbyn fight another day. If he whips either way, he'll probably have to quit.

I wonder if we might see our first resignation next week (a PPS most likely), particularly if the Oldham by-election result is a closer than previously expected. Just last week it was reported that Labour's majority could be halved, and matters have likely worsened since that time.

 

[Silva]

I wonder how they'll blame Corbyn when the bombing of Syria proves itself to be a catastrophic mistake.

 

[bishblaize]

I wonder how they'll blame Corbyn when the bombing of Syria proves itself to be a catastrophic mistake.

They wont, but Corbyn's supporters will believe it to be so.

 

[Ubik]

I wonder how they'll blame Corbyn when the bombing of Syria proves itself to be a catastrophic mistake.

How's it going to be a catastrophic mistake?

There's a weird hodgepodge of arguments against this intervention. Some are telling us that there are already 12 countries involved in the bombing and we'll make no difference whatsoever. Others are saying we'll single handedly make the situation worse, despite it already being horrific.

 

[bishblaize]

Fisher avoids a disciplinary investigation.

 

[Silva]

How's it going to be a catastrophic mistake?

There's a weird hodgepodge of arguments against this intervention. Some are telling us that there are already 12 countries involved in the bombing and we'll make no difference whatsoever. Others are saying we'll single handedly make the situation worse, despite it already being horrific.

It's going to be catastrophic because we're piling in on the wrong side. It's our friends, the Turks and Saudis, that are funding and allowing the Iraqi politicians to keep the civil war going. Unless we're willing to feck Turkey and Saudi Arabia over all we'll be doing is further damage to Syria. And it doesn't seem like we're willing to do that. We'd rather keep selling them weapons and buy their oil.

Camerons so called legitimate opposition is no better than the people he wants to blow up.

 

[bishblaize]

It's going to be catastrophic because we're piling in on the wrong side. It's our friends, the Turks and Saudis, that are funding and allowing the Iraqi politicians to keep the civil war going. Unless we're willing to feck Turkey and Saudi Arabia over all we'll be doing is further damage to Syria. And it doesn't seem like we're willing to do that. We'd rather keep selling them weapons and buy their oil.

Camerons so called legitimate opposition is no better than the people he wants to blow up.

Which is the right side?

 

[Ubik]

It's going to be catastrophic because we're piling in on the wrong side. It's our friends, the Turks and Saudis, that are funding and allowing the Iraqi politicians to keep the civil war going. Unless we're willing to feck Turkey and Saudi Arabia over all we'll be doing is further damage to Syria. And it doesn't seem like we're willing to do that. We'd rather keep selling them weapons and buy their oil.

Camerons so called legitimate opposition is no better than the people he wants to blow up.

You got any proof of that last claim?

 

[Silva]

Which is the right side?

There isn't one. Which is why I want us to only be involved on a humanitarian basis.

 

[Silva]

You got any proof of that last claim?

How about the years they've spent going around killing people?

 

[Ubik]

How about the years they've spent going around killing people?

So your proof is the civil war?

 

[Silva]

So your proof is the civil war?

It's beyond a civil war now. It's a land grabbing exercise with people from all over the world involved the the militias at this point. A civil war would be Syrians vs. Syrians.

For what it's worth, I'd be alright with us helping the Kurds consolidate their gains in places where they are the majority, but beyond that I don't want us involved. But we don't wanna piss of Turkey now, do we?

 

[Ubik]

It's beyond a civil war now. It's a land grabbing exercise with people from all over the world involved the the militias at this point. A civil war would be Syrians vs. Syrians.

So you think all of them are the same?

 

[Silva]

So you think all of them are the same?

For the most part. Yes. Politicians using psychos to gain land, wealth and power.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Way to make horrific situations better: drop a load of bombs. Won't achieve a thing.

 

[Silva]

Way to make horrific situations better: drop a load of bombs. Won't achieve a thing.

Cameron will get to play with the other boys, though, and that seems to be the important thing here.

 

[Shamwow]

How's it going to be a catastrophic mistake?

Surely you can think of some possibilities? A few that I've thought of:

1) Outside interference in civil wars correlates with them lasting longer and being more bloody
2) Mission creep that could have us still bombing the place in a decade's time (at best)
3) We incite ISIS and other Islamist groups into being more likely to attack us whilst doing very little to actually deal with the idealogy
4) Spending loads of money that we keep getting told we don't have
5) Accidentally killing a bunch of innocent people
6) Accidentally blowing up a Russian plane

 

[bishblaize]

Way to make horrific situations better: drop a load of bombs. Won't achieve a thing.

Inaction has consequences too. Its just easier to pretend it's not our fault if we do nothing.

 

[Kaos]

You got any proof of that last claim?

Do you want to be PMed videos of Cameron's legit oppostion beheading Christians, eating a Soldier's heart and recently shouting Allak Akbar as they kill the Russian pilot that ejected? Or do you get the idea?

 

[Ubik]

Do you want to be PMed videos of Cameron's legit oppostion beheading Christians, eating a Soldier's heart and recently shouting Allak Akbar as they kill the Russian pilot that ejected? Or do you get the idea?

I believe the point was that they're all like that. I disagree that they're all like that.

And no, please do not PM me those videos.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Inaction has consequences too. Its just easier to pretend it's not our fault if we do nothing.

I agree, but the bombing campaign just won't work. Two ways of purging Isis as far as I can see. Firstly, back Assad and let him commit whatever genocidal acts he needs to in order to take control back. That is a terrible option for a number of reasons. Secondly, large international force on the ground in Syria. Again, will be pretty bleak.

But unless the aim is to completely destroy a significant part of Syria, then these bombing campaigns won't work. Have seen this in the past in other situations.

 

[Kaos]

I believe the point was that they're all like that. I disagree that they're all like that.

And no, please do not PM me those videos.

Well unfortunately the ones he intends to arm are of that mould, the 'moderate' opposition have either given up and fled or have simply become obsolete. Like it or not the most organised opposition forces are radical jihadists, and they'll likely be the beneficiaries of whatever weapons, aid and support Cameron decides to offer.

Edit: He can of course just support the Kurds who are the most sensible and secular opposition, but I'd wager that Cameron wouldn't want to upset his Turkish buddies, who incidentally are in the Islamist camp.

 

[Silva]

Inaction has consequences too. Its just easier to pretend it's not our fault if we do nothing.

Again, if we really care so much and want to help out, why not take humanitarian action instead? We gonna drop £10m worth of bombs on Syria? Why not give refugees £10m worth of food and shelter instead?

 

[Shamwow]

Well unfortunately the ones he intends to arm are of that mould, the 'moderate' opposition have either given up and fled or have simply become obsolete. Like it or not the most organised opposition forces are radical jihadists, and they'll likely be the beneficiaries of whatever weapons, aid and support Cameron decides to offer.

Edit: He can of course just support the Kurds who are the most sensible and secular opposition, but I'd wager that Cameron wouldn't want to upset his Turkish buddies, who incidentally are in the Islamist camp.

Would the Kurds even want all of the IS terrority?

 

[Ubik]

Well unfortunately the ones he intends to arm are of that mould, the 'moderate' opposition have either given up and fled or have simply become obsolete. Like it or not the most organised opposition forces are radical jihadists, and they'll likely be the beneficiaries of whatever weapons, aid and support Cameron decides to offer.

Edit: He can of course just support the Kurds who are the most sensible and secular opposition, but I'd wager that Cameron wouldn't want to upset his Turkish buddies, who incidentally are in the Islamist camp.

Aren't we already supporting the Kurds through airstrikes in Iraq? I thought the problem with them is more that they aren't going to push beyond their own territory?

Again, if we really care so much and want to help out, why not take humanitarian action instead? We gonna drop £10m worth of bombs on Syria? Why not give refugees £10m worth of food and shelter instead?

Didn't Cameron pledge £1bn towards that? Aren't we also already supporting refugee camps? One of Cameron's least popular and most pilloried policies is the 0.7% foreign aid budget, so I think attacking him on that is shaky ground.

 

[Kaos]

Would the Kurds even want all of the IS terrority?

No, just the northern corridor. But taking it will secure the border and cripple IS's ability to seamlessly jump in and out of the Turkish border (since the Turks don't seem interested in stopping that themselves)

 

[sun_tzu]

Surely you can think of some possibilities? A few that I've thought of:

1) Outside interference in civil wars correlates with them lasting longer and being more bloody
2) Mission creep that could have us still bombing the place in a decade's time (at best)
3) We incite ISIS and other Islamist groups into being more likely to attack us whilst doing very little to actually deal with the idealogy
4) Spending loads of money that we keep getting told we don't have
5) Accidentally killing a bunch of innocent people
6) Accidentally blowing up a Russian plane

All valid points - I dont know about the rest of you though but if was driving down the road and I saw somebody beheading a guy or raping a child I personally wouldn't drive on by - I probably wouldn't think of too many of the consequences either - I'd just do whatever I could to stop it

Given that we have a lot of cruise missiles and drones / planes that can deliver firepower with a reasonable amount of accuracy then you know what I think we either do something (and accept it probably wont be perfect and live with that on our conscience) or we do nothing (and accept that these people will carry on and there will be more beheadings and rapes and we live with that on our conscience)

Take your pick from two less than perfect scenarios but personally I'd rather regret something I had done than not doing something.

 

[Kaos]

Aren't we already supporting the Kurds through airstrikes in Iraq? I thought the problem with them is more that they aren't going to push beyond their own territory?

I meant in Syria, and as I mentioned above, helping secure the Syrian Kurdish onslaught in the North means you essentially block out ISIS's passage into Syria from Turkey.