|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Syria and the U.K. Parliament
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yup. With the luxury of hindsight, even if we weren't actually going to support the Syrian government (why BTW do the BBC etc always call it 'the regime'? Whatever we think of it, it's still the recognised government of Syria, isn't it?)when the rebellion started back in 2011, we should have stayed aside and not given any suipport to the rebels. I hope, though not with muich confidence, that we've now learned that some kind of effective government in place is almost always to be preferred to the alternative, unless the alternative is very well organised and well resourced and well thought through and in general likely to succeed in establishing itself as an effective government quickly.
Not quite the luxury of hindsight. I was saying that right from the start. But I don't move in the sort of circles where my opinion has much value.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yup. With the luxury of hindsight, even if we weren't actually going to support the Syrian government (why BTW do the BBC etc always call it 'the regime'?
Since you invoke hindsight; afaict the only intervention in the Middle East that has actually 'worked' (and we still don't know the end game), is the time 'we' helped the Bahrani regime crush reform movement over there whilst it was in its infancy.
In any other area of government, if a policy had this kind of track record of failure we'd consider anyone suggesting it to be deluded or a dangerous lunatic.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How might the UK go about facilitating peace talks involving the Islamic State?
Well at the begining of the Afghan war people went on about the how the brutality of the Taliban meaning we couldn't negotiate with them. Eventually we did, how was that negotiation achieved and can we learn anything from it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Chatham house commentator on radio 4 today was agreeing with the estimate of 70,000 fighters whoare non-ISIS non-Assad being in Syria - but not as a coherent armed force. Which is, I think, and important difference with Iraq.
As regards what ISIS believes - it is worth bearing in mind that many of the foot soldiers have not joined because they are salafi extremists but for entirely different reasons. Ultimately this disconnect may be the fault line that can be used to break ISIS.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Albertus wrote:
quote:
(why BTW do the BBC etc always call it 'the regime'? Whatever we think of it, it's still the recognised government of Syria, isn't it?)
Well, if that were the criteria, than the word "regime" could probably be retired from political discussion, since almost every government that wears the label is a recognized one.
Which might be a good thing, as "regime" is one of those words that people use to make themselves sound objective, when they're really trying to pass a moral judgement. The authoritarian thugs we like are a government; the ones we don't are a regime.
I agree it was a stupid idea to align with opponents of the Assad government.
[ 27. November 2015, 19:49: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Even if they do exist, and I heard that commentator, I thought nothing he said was anything more than plausible wishful thinking by someone who had sympathies with one faction in the area.
But even if what he said had been true, not-being-Assad and not-being-ISIS doesn't make you somebody any sane person would want to support or see succeed. The Taliban, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas all pass both those tests. So for that matter, would both Janjaweed and the Khmer Rouge, though fortunately those aren't active in that part of the world.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I agree with you entirely.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Interestingly, Corbyn has just emailed the labour membership canvassing their views on Syria.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Interestingly, Corbyn has just emailed the labour membership canvassing their views on Syria.
And I have replied exhorting him to stick to his guns (so to speak). I had already emailed my MP asking him to support the Leader.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
And Deputy Labour Leader Tom Watson agrees with Hillary Benn about the 'compelling case'.
JC is not a mandated delegate, Doublethink. He's a party leader with a mandate to lead. I'm not impressed with the decision to email the membership. It's all Lombard Street to a China orange that the membership will back his stance as they did in principle when they elected him. Why does he need a further confirmation? And when he gets it, what will he do with it that he can't already do? Show the likes of Benn and Watson the door? That's not the way you lead a parliamentary party in a representative democracy. Representatives are not delegates.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Indeed, but I suspect he wants to counteract the narrative that the voters have turned on a dime and suddenly want a war.
Also, he is getting shafted by the plp. I have responded to the canvas but also contacted my mp - to support the statement that mp has already made saying he will vote against.
What I would like is a free vote, in which the majority of labour mps (and the house as a whole) vote against.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Posted on Facebook Doublethink, superb.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Deputy Labour Leader Tom Watson agrees with Hillary Benn about the 'compelling case'.
I wonder what it is.
I wonder why neither of them has told us what the compelling case is.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Deputy Labour Leader Tom Watson agrees with Hillary Benn about the 'compelling case'.
I wonder what it is.
I wonder why neither of them has told us what the compelling case is.
Cameron's case and his response to questions is summarised well here
I'm not surprised that neither Tom Watson nor Hillary Benn have not yet gone into detail in public over why they find the case compelling. But I have no doubt that the arguments were rehearsed in the subsequent 2 hour Shadow Cabinet meeting,
The Shadow Cabinet members left that meeting agreeing to think things over and meet again to try and find a response which they could sign up to collectively. That might still happen. Until that possibility is exhausted, I don't expect Benn or Watson to go into detail. They would want to save that either for the debate on a future House resolution or the prior abandonment by the Shadow Cabinet of the search for an agreed position.
And that is why Corbyn's appeal to the membership over the heads of the Shadow Cabinet has got him into further difficulty with the plp. He clearly did not win over his Shadow Cabinet to his position but has acted unilaterally before Shadow Cabinet discussions were exhausted.
My guess is that he judged that he was bound to lose in the further discussion and so struck first. That's not the way to look after collective Shadow Cabinet responsibility nor build confidence in his ability to lead the plp in the House. I think he acted precipitantly. I think he will pay for it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
There is obviously a battle between Corbyn and the PLP, and his canvassing of membership opinion can be seen as an over the heads tactic. But it is his one really good weapon, and it is what he has consistently done on all issues since his election.
I personally think it's a useful reminder to Benn, Watson and the other more traditional Labour MPs that they shouldn't forget that it was their brand of Tory-lite Labour that got them stuffed at the election.
The inability of Benn and Watson to give any reasons for wanting to support the Tory line of doing something, anything, is because, in my opinion, they are still doing the old thing of saying things that they hope will sound good.
I don't think it's Benn and Watson who are the pragmatists here. They are the strike a pose people, hoping to say what people might like to hear. As we slide towards war we need a very careful examination of arguments, not sly hints and posturing.
Cameron's case, as far as I can see is a big dollop of the 'something must be done' fallacy. There is a threat, lets hit some foreign folks. There is no realisation that the threat is largely internal, that anti-Western groups have already operated under a variety of umbrellas - al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Gadaffi's government, etc. - and should ISIS (or is that Islamic State or ISIL or daesh?) be defeated it will be little more than a name change.
And then Cameron analyses the situation in Syria and says that air support, skipping over the issue of which side we support, will work rather as it does in Iraq, although clearly not as successfully as there. Wow!
What about alternatives? I am not convinced that the economic squeeze on ISIS is happening. I am not convinced that the influence of othe Arab and other Islamic nations has been exerted fully.
And how about something really radical? How about a listening process! How about creating a platform for Islamic thinkers, political, religious and academic, to debate. How about a Western leaders visibly listening and learning from young Muslim men at home and abroad?
How many bombs would a statement from a Western leader that some of the Islamic critiques of the West have a point be worth? How much de-radicalising would be achieved by figures in Western society and our society as a whole listening to the voices of the unhappy and alienated? What mileage might there be in looking away from Syria and helping Islam to produce, I'm not sure where, one truly democratic, peaceful, prosperous model Islamic nation that could be an example and a witness to the world?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Cameron's case, as far as I can see is a big dollop of the 'something must be done' fallacy. There is a threat, lets hit some foreign folks. ...
And how about something really radical? How about a listening process! How about creating a platform for Islamic thinkers, political, religious and academic, to debate. How about a Western leaders visibly listening and learning from young Muslim men at home and abroad?
Yes. One has to understand what drives people to take the positions they hold - however abhorrent they may seem to us. Bombing them is only going to increase their senses of injustice or whatever. Having said that, like most Fundamentalists they are hardly amenable to reasoned debate.
[ 28. November 2015, 08:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This demonstrates the nonsense about assuming everyone believes a package. Some people do. One can predict what Nigel Farrage, George Monbiot or Jeremy Corbyn will think about virtually anything, without needing to wait until they've spouted.
I disagree with Corbyn on virtually everything. He represents many of the things I detest most in politicians. But on this one, he and I would vote the same way, though almost certainly for completely different reasons.
Anyway, the reason why Corbyn has written round the party members because he wants to bully his parliamentary party into knuckling under.
Either way, it's exposed a rift in the Labour Party which the rest of us have assumed was bound to happen sooner rather than later ever since Corbyn won the leadership role. If you don't let the parliamentary party choose who's going to lead them, what do you do if this results in the party members imposing on them a leader they can't work with and don't respect? And what does it mean when the MPs, elected only a few months ago, with all the effort and support of their local parties, now seem to be so out of kilter with what their party has suddenly decided they want in stead?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Cameron's case, as far as I can see is a big dollop of the 'something must be done' fallacy. There is a threat, lets hit some foreign folks.
And then Cameron analyses the situation in Syria and says that air support, skipping over the issue of which side we support, will work rather as it does in Iraq, although clearly not as successfully as there. Wow!
For an example of the kind of arguments deployed by the pro-bombing side, take a look at this article by Robin Lustig - who would presumably class himself as a realist:
http://lustigletter.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/syria-why-i-am-reluctant-bomber.html
He admits that IS can't be defeated militarily. He concedes that the UK contribution would be tiny at best (especially at a time when the existing air forces frequently can't find targets to bomb), but nevertheless concludes that we should bomb the areas in which ISIS are operational anyway.
To be clear, the total numbers of active ISIS fighters is small relative to the civilian population of those areas in which they are active. Every time we do this we ensure that there are more pictures of dead babies circulating the broader middle east. I'm not sure strikes from the air are likely to achieve the kinds of aims that are being claimed.
On the topic of the PLP, one of the things the shadow cabinet had allegedly gone away to do was to consult with their constituents. I'm not entirely sure that there is a majority in this country in favor of military action.
[ 28. November 2015, 09:00: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't understand that reasoning. Bombing Syria is not going to stop IS, but we should do it anyway. Oookay then.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What mileage might there be in looking away from Syria and helping Islam to produce, I'm not sure where, one truly democratic, peaceful, prosperous model Islamic nation that could be an example and a witness to the world?
Tunisia is already a democracy. Morocco is a kingdom, but the current monarch is a social reformer although he's yet to turn over most of his authority to the elected parliament. Albania is recovering from communist government, but is now a fully fledged democracy in line for EU membership in due course. Further afield, Indonesia and Malaysia are moderate Islamic majority democracies.
None of them are perfect countries free of all religious strife. But, I'll challenge you to find any perfect nation. The UK certainly isn't without it's problems and troubled history.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
On the topic of the PLP, one of the things the shadow cabinet had allegedly gone away to do was to consult with their constituents. I'm not entirely sure that there is a majority in this country in favor of military action.
Which is also what Corbyn has done, except he's included the members of the party that elected him leader within his constituency as well as those who elected him MP. Which is fair enough, he holds that elected position to lead the Labour party not drag them kicking and screaming to somewhere they don't want to go.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, in related news ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I wouldn't even joke about blowing up Hopkins - nasty, pantomime witch that she is.
Personally I'd rather take heed of the inspired bit of passive aggression that invites her onto a panel and then in unison the audience turns to ignore her.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Their appointments represent his first leadership decisions. He has to persuade them or coerce them or overrule them by authority first. So far as collective responsibility goes, it's up to them first. Including whether they stay or go. I'm a life long Labour supporter. This is an unholy mess.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by doublethink quote:
Interestingly, Corbyn has just emailed the labour membership canvassing their views on Syria.
And that sums up Jezza and why he is the wrong person in the wrong job.
He was elected as Leader - the clue is in the title. Either he is convinced of the virtues and correctness of his stance on Syria or he isn't: if convinced he has no need to 'consult' the paid-up members of the Labour Party.
Of course, we all know why he's done it: (a) because he realises that he's unlikely to carry the members of the PLP with him; and (b) its yet another sign that he is still firmly wedded to the ideal of political process he espoused as a schoolboy, and which has remained unchanged by either time or maturity.
To be blunt, there is little to be gained by bombing either Syria or Iraq: the only way to root out the daesh is through the hard slog of boots on the ground.
The problem is that unless it is done by fellow muslims then there will always be a constituency in the region who view any action by the 'west' against daesh as the jackbooting of crusader neo-imperialists. There are two credible armies in the region: those of Turkey and Israel, but Turkey is unlikely to do anything unless it feels its own border under direct threat, and even then they will be equally concerned to smash the PKK at the same time. As for letting the Israelis get involved ...
If Mr Corbyn is indeed serious about doing something constructive he should be promoting the cause of stopping the spread of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia and speaking to people - such as the academics of the Al-Azhar university in Cairo - who might be prepared and able to mount arguments to persuade the Saudi royal family to reign in their fanatical clerics. The fact that JC is entirely silent on this shows how little grasp he has of the real politics behind the situation.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by doublethink quote:
Interestingly, Corbyn has just emailed the labour membership canvassing their views on Syria.
And that sums up Jezza and why he is the wrong person in the wrong job.
He was elected as Leader - the clue is in the title.
Whereas, I would say that that is exactly why he's the right person in the right job. He's leader of the Labour Party, not dictator of the Labour Party. He has made his case against airstrikes, he has asked the party to follow him. If the party are not convinced then he's in a difficult position. Of course, as I've yet to see a convincing argument for bombing Daesh in Syria (least of all talk of a mythical army of 70,000 fighters - which, even if they exist, is inadequate to the task even with air support) I can't see Corbyn having difficulty convincing his party of his views.
Although my preference would be for Cameron, Corbyn, Robertson and Farron to issue a joint statement that this is an issue too important for party politics, that it would be a free vote, and instruct all MPs to canvass opinions from their constituents and consider the views expressed by all sides to make a decision they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents, the country and the international community.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I've told Jeremy he MUST stay. Not resign under any circumstances. He MUST continue to be the voice of God, I'm sure and hope, he does NOT believe in, for a moment. And he must continue to do the impossible. Lead a parliamentary party that very mainly disagrees with him. Keep them AND his constantly proclaimed principles in tension together. He's the reason I joined the party and will leave it. Hilary and Tom and Chukwu aren't good enough. Diane and John are, but that's because they agree with Jeremy. Without Jeremy's lead as an apostle and prophet, the Party is gutted, heartless. He MUST stay and MUST submit to cabinet consensus under sufferance if necessary. But he MUST stay. Or Her Majesty will have no Most Loyal Opposition.
If Jeremy is taken out in a party coup, the flicker of Sonshine will go out of British public life. There is NONE in the publically perceived church. There is from the bottom up but the top can't see that far down. I was at a men's breakfast this morning, run by a former counter-terrorist officer, sitting next to a former DI. The wonderful main speaker was a transformed British Resistance and WORSE terrorist. Last night the soup kitchen was run by a still Tory former Hell's Angel enforcer. They are ALL totally against war.
My kinsman is selling a false prospectus, like Blair, based on a false dichotomy: we are NOT subcontracting our defence by refusing to bomb Raqqa, by weeping with Hollande but not accompanying him in that.
God bless Jeremy. And David therefore. And the RAF. And ISIS.
And it could all be swept out of our hands and get VERY scary indeed around Latakia.
(The problem is quadruple thinking Islamizing TURKEY. Therefore the CIA, the Saudis and therefore, of course, even though no they DIDN'T bring down the Twin Towers, Israel. All opposing an increasingly impotent, wounded and therefore more dangerous Russia. Anyone would think there's a Devil.)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
To be blunt, there is little to be gained by bombing either Syria or Iraq: the only way to root out the daesh is through the hard slog of boots on the ground.
The problem is that unless it is done by fellow muslims then there will always be a constituency in the region who view any action by the 'west' against daesh as the jackbooting of crusader neo-imperialists.
Precisely. We're already involved in bombing Iraq, and Daesh don't recognize borders. Air raids on Syria are a logical extension of ongoing operations, which may remove a few more buildings but won't help that much ultimately. It needs, as you said, boots on the ground: a force composed of professional soldiers from several countries.
That is no light matter and not something that should be done without very careful consideration (it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" decisions) but I can't see any other way of making it work.
As for Corbyn - send him back to the back-benches where he belongs. The man's clearly out of his depth, he won't improve with time, and he doesn't have what it takes to lead. I hope the MPs who disagree won't resign; it would just open the way for him to fill the vacancies with more people in his own mould.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
At the moment there are airstrikes against Daesh in Iraq with ground troops from the Iraqi army. The progress at pushing Daesh back is very slow, with a far larger and better trained and equipped army on the ground than the "70,000 fighters" supposedly in Syria. At present, if military operations against Daesh are required, then it makes more sense to support the operations in Iraq. Daesh don't care about borders, so defeats in Iraq or Syria will be the same to them. We can fight Daesh that way without getting further into the mess in Syria. And, Cameron may not even need Commons support to do that as he already has a vote in favour of air strikes there.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, as for Corbyn - so far everything he's done since his election as Labour leader has made him seem an even better leader than before. I like his approach of stating his views clearly, and sticking to them, while trying to build a consensus (even though occasionally that may be a consensus to do something he personally disagrees with). I suppose the only question is whether that approach is suitable to making instant decisions in a crisis, but there hasn't been the need for a leader of the Opposition to do that for as long as I can remember, and even though the PM has occasionally done that I don't recall an occasion when it was essential - possibly some operational matters crossed the PMs desk as the 7/7 attacks happened.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
![[Smile]](smile.gif) Alan. Where two or three of us ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Alan. Where two or three of us ...
Which makes zero sense given there are several just here who believe equal and opposite things.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Whatever you say mr cheesy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I've told Jeremy he MUST stay. ...
So that's where he takes his instructions from. I had been wondering.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, as for Corbyn - so far everything he's done since his election as Labour leader has made him seem an even better leader than before.
Thank you Alan, you've made me laugh on a dismal November evening. Don't let him change (that includes those disastrous shirts). I'm quite enjoying all the anecdotes that come up on pretty much a daily basis.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent alert
Back on Corbyn again, there's an important point nobody seems to be making.
Unlike members of local Labour Parties, who get there by paying their subs, the members of the PLP have all been elected. Once in the Commons, they do not represent the Labour Party. They represent all their constituents INCLUDING THE ONES WHO VOTED FOR SOMEONE ELSE. That is important.
As it happens, on this particular issue, nobody really knows what the public at large thinks. Cameron doesn't. He daren't ask or even do the research, because he suspects that most of them do not want to go to war in the Middle East yet again. Nor does the PLP. Nor for that matter do Corbyn or a lot of the new members of the Labour Party, because fundamental to their collective view of the world is that only their own activists have opinions that are worth listening to. The rest of us don't matter. We are irrelevant, the political equivalent of the unelect. When they use the word 'democratic'. that's what they mean. They've meant that since the 1970s.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
But they represent them by exercising judgement on their behalf, not by reflecting their opinion on every matter. They are representatives, not delegates.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well he did ask, Enoch.
[ 28. November 2015, 17:36: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I believe the labour mps have been exhorted to go and speak to their constituents - and one would hope that constituents with strong views on the issue will contact their mps.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The rest of us don't matter. We are irrelevant, the political equivalent of the unelect. When they use the word 'democratic'. that's what they mean. They've meant that since the 1970s.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Whereas the Tories believe they were born to rule and therefore ignore the opinions of everyone. They've done so since the 1770s.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, as for Corbyn - so far everything he's done since his election as Labour leader has made him seem an even better leader than before.
Thank you Alan, you've made me laugh on a dismal November evening. Don't let him change (that includes those disastrous shirts). I'm quite enjoying all the anecdotes that come up on pretty much a daily basis.
Just you wait until Cameron steps down and the grassroots Tory party elects Jacob Rees-Mogg as his successor...it could happen.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
hatless
I see that there is going to be a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday and Hilary Benn will be speaking. So we will no doubt find out why he found Cameron's case compelling. I think your characterisation of his reasons - of lack of them - was at best premature. He's a serious man, not given to posturing. I'm not so familiar with Tom Watson but I think we will hear his reasoning as well.
The annoyance of many Labour MPs over Corbyn's email consultation seems perfectly understandable to me. I guess I can see its value as a tactic. But there is something ironic in Corbyn of all people seeking to dragoon the opinions of MPs in this way. Using the pressure of the opinions of the party activists to cow Cabinet dissent was a Thatcherite tactic. Of course, she didn't do email consultation, she knew she didn't need to. But if you sow that wind you eventually reap a whirlwind. TBH I thought he would be more collegiate. His whirlwind may come much sooner than Mrs T's did.
Link to a Huff Post article.
(late edit to clarify and include link)
[ 29. November 2015, 08:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Using the pressure of the opinions of the party activists to cow Cabinet dissent was a Thatcherite tactic. Of course, she didn't do email consultation, she knew she didn't need to. But if you sow that wind you eventually reap a whirlwind. TBH I thought he would be more collegiate. His whirlwind may come much sooner than Mrs T's did.
I think your point would have much more weight if we hadn't been treated over the last few months to an extended tantrum by the 'Anyone but Corbyn' contingent in the Labour party - plus their media associates - who have been fairly voluble in stating their red lines well in advance in order to try and provoke a fight.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All's fair in love and WAR B62.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Using the pressure of the opinions of the party activists to cow Cabinet dissent was a Thatcherite tactic. Of course, she didn't do email consultation, she knew she didn't need to. But if you sow that wind you eventually reap a whirlwind. TBH I thought he would be more collegiate. His whirlwind may come much sooner than Mrs T's did.
Comrade Corbyn has always seemed like the iron fist in the tatty corduroy glove to me, someone who knows exactly what he wants to do, and is just biding his time because he's in the public eye and wants to court approval. He's had to compromise on a lot so far but the impression I get is that it's been done through gritted teeth. The email thing is one of the small hints that give me pause for thought (that and the grim, unsmiling pictures of him usually taken against a smouldering red background don't help to soften his image either). I may be misjudging him, after all I've never met him, but that's how he comes across to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Just you wait until Cameron steps down and the grassroots Tory party elects Jacob Rees-Mogg as his successor...it could happen.
More likely the uncharismatic George Osborne or the wonderfully individual Boris Johnson. Oh well, at least Boris is a cheery sort.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Oh well, I suppose it will be George then. Ho hum.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Thats been in the public domain for years, but apparently doesn't matter to a lot of tories - Boris is etonian+oxbridge and wears a suit, that seems to be enough.
[ 29. November 2015, 11:32: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Wierdly, even the spectator is admitting Corbyn may have a point. (In a damning with extremely faint praise kind of way.)
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-more-sensible-about-syria-than-david-cameron/
[ 29. November 2015, 11:40: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
