It should be said that quite a few people on here said that precisely such a course of events would occur back during the leadership election. That his past and his positions would grant him very limited respect and authority within the PLP and it would get very messy very quickly.I think a day like today highlights that on certain issues, Corbyn just can't really win. If he'd changed his stance and supported airstrikes, he'd be seen as a hypocrite. If he'd whipped the vote, he'd be seen as a hypocritical tyrant, ignoring the views of most of his party. As it stands, he's perceived as someone who is enabling his MP's to go against his opinion, and highlighting divisions within the party. And that's probably the best of those three outcomes he could've hoped for.
Exactly. It proves just how out of touch he is!
Actually I have been saying for a couple of weeks it will have to be a free voteI think a day like today highlights that on certain issues, Corbyn just can't really win. If he'd changed his stance and supported airstrikes, he'd be seen as a hypocrite. If he'd whipped the vote, he'd be seen as a hypocritical tyrant, ignoring the views of most of his party. As it stands, he's perceived as someone who is enabling his MP's to go against his opinion, and highlighting divisions within the party. And that's probably the best of those three outcomes he could've hoped for.
It should be said that quite a few people on here said that precisely such a course of events would occur back during the leadership election. That his past and his positions would grant him very limited respect and authority within the PLP and it would get very messy very quickly.
I agree with that but I think that's a wider issue with the PLP that someone like Corbyn can't be worked with.
Newsnight last night was very poor, Syria hardly came up but they spent a lot of time painting the free vote as something incompatible with politics.
I do wonder what the other candidates would have done over the strike.
And Cameron is then I take it?
I'm far more likely to trust his judgement than I am someone who has declared he would not be prepared to take the ultimate decision and press the button if needed and has spent his whole time in the job scrambling around trying and failing to persuade his own hand picked shadow cabinet to support him. His out of date beliefs that most of the rest of the world have left far behind have only served to back himself into a corner, further distance himself from his fellow MP's and, thankfully, ensure he will never be PM.
Shadow economic secretary no less...Labour MP Richard Burgon, often visibly confused by dogs and plumbing, is attending a Stop the War march on Labour HQ today.
I'm far more likely to trust his judgement than I am someone who has declared he would not be prepared to take the ultimate decision and press the button if needed and has spent his whole time in the job scrambling around trying and failing to persuade his own hand picked shadow cabinet to support him. His out of date beliefs that most of the rest of the world have left far behind have only served to back himself into a corner, further distance himself from his fellow MP's and, thankfully, ensure he will never be PM.
You're happy for Cameron to drag us into another neocon war, threatening the country's security, and getting into bed with Saudi Arabia and other extremist factions that include Al Qaeda?
If only half arsed middle east interventions were out of date.
What do you mean by press the button when "needed"? The only time it's going to be used is if London and the prime minister is no more. I'd wager any letter opened will only say "Join up with the US" anyway.
Using it after London and the PM is no more will be a little difficult don't you think. The will to use the button is what counts....that is the deterrent we have and one that the woolly minded Corbyn won't allow us to have.
What would you do to try and end the threat of ISIL?
What do you mean difficult? That's why we have the at sea deterrent. Corbyn doesn't have to give permission to fire as no one knows what's in the letter, traditionally 3 out of the 4 options have been non-retalitory. You can argue it's not a deterrent if the PM says they won't order it but the monarchy or second in command can still give the order and the decision can be made by the submarine without attainable orders.
As for ISIL I'd allow Russia and the US to continue the fight and if necessary at a later date put boots on the ground. There's plenty of more damaging political measures that can be taken before we commit rather than jumping to a token gesture.
I am happy to agree with Cameron, the United Nations Security Council Resolution and for us to answer the call for support from our allies and join them in bombing and using all necessary measures' to prevent terrorist attacks by ISIL.
I really fail to see how anyone thinks Western boots on the ground can possibly help.
Why is right for Russia/US and not for others?
I really fail to see how anyone thinks Western boots on the ground can possibly help.
So how many countries do you want involved bombing ISIL citing it's the right thing to do? The need has already been met and our contribution would be largely symbolic and that's not a basis for involvement.
After exhausting all political options (including non-western intervention) then at some point it has to be a consideration despite the obvious issues it brings.
It's why I find the argument of bombing ISIL ridiculous. There's wide acceptance that bombing alone isn't enough and also wide opposition to boots on the ground. It's admittance that's it's a token gesture but it'll get passed through anyway.
I'll leave this discussion for the appropriate thread
Not sure you answered my question unless you were serious about non western intervention and political options which presumably means talking to ISIL. Getting back to the real world, bombing ISIL is aimed at weakening them and, as is blatently clear, is just part the wider strategy against them. We are never going agree on this issue so we'll agree to disagree.
Don't forget to sell them weapons somewhere in the middle of that. Make it a fair fight.The five step strategy for combating terrorism.
- Talk tough on terror.
- Demonise immigrants.
- Increase surveillance of domestic populations.
- Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live.
- Trident.
It still sounds slightly more effective than:The five step strategy for combating terrorism.
- Talk tough on terror.
- Demonise immigrants.
- Increase surveillance of domestic populations.
- Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live.
- Trident.
Naturally. You have to build and sell weapons. That creates jobs, prosperity and a better future for everyone.Don't forget to sell them weapons somewhere in the middle of that. Make it a fair fight.
It still sounds slightly more effective than:
Don't use drones to kill them
Don't bomb them
Out of interest, who has argued this?And don't shoot them if they are rampaging through London
Apart from history showing otherwise?
in light of you summing up the government stance asOut of interest, who has argued this?
Ah yes, got you.in light of you summing up the government stance as
Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live
I thought I would provide the same sort of standards to Corbyns shoot to kill comments
How do you know what would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had done nothing? Perhaps the eventual outcome was better than what would have happened.
How do you know what would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had done nothing? Perhaps the eventual outcome was better than what would have happened.
Id kind of agree with that - though I may reword it as if there was a competent Labour leader - but I think your right.I'd go as far as saying that if there was a more consensual and open minded Labour leader at the moment, the government probably wouldn't be going ahead with a vote tomorrow. When you read the well-reasoned pieces against action on current terms from the likes of Keir Starmer and Chi Onwurah, that make clear that using military force is a clear option but that a better plan needs to formulate before committing to it, and that's something the party could clearly attack the government on and probably get nearly all MPs to agree to. Such an argument couldn't come from Corbyn, because he's a renowned pacifist. And this is why having strong and united opposition is a good thing, rather than the current free for all.
True, though I do think his dogmatism and tribalism are key tenets of his incompetence.Id kind of agree with that - though I may reword it as if there was a competent Labour leader - but I think your right.
Because the status quo prior to the invasions were a lot less worse than they were post-invasion?
