exile Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Reaction seems to be along the same lines as mine so far, disappointment but understanding. I doubt the massive number of lefties within the Labour membership are under any illusions on the task that the Great one faces. Any dissenting voices from within the party progressives will be reactionary and from those who don't really understand how the world works. Interesting. But is he really the Great one? He was no doubt an effective campaigner - in the leadership marathon - all you need do is adopt a stance, argue for it, go up and down the country saying the same thing... watch the others trip themselves up... but does he have the skills, the political nous, the people skills, the managerial craft and guile to succeed as the leader of a major party? Edited November 30, 2015 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernscum Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Interesting. But is he really the Great one? He was no doubt an effective campaigner - in the leadership marathon - all you need do is adopt a stance, argue for it, go up and down the country saying the same thing... watch the others trip themselves up... but does he have the skills, the political nous, the people skills, the managerial craft and guile to succeed as the leader of a major party? He doesn't even have the courage of his own convictions when it comes to critical voting. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has been tasked with the job of leading a nest of vipers, he has done himself no favours whatsoever recently. In short, Labour are totally f u cked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Iain Macwhirter @iainmacwhirter 7m7 minutes ago Weirdly, Corbyn had probably caught the public mood of deep scepticism about bombing Syria. Just at the moment he caved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 54 + 2 robots doing what HQ says. Won't criticise. Won't debate. Power centralised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 54 + 2 robots doing what HQ says. Won't criticise. Won't debate. Power centralised. How many of the SNP MPs individually support air strikes regardless of the SNP whip ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckielugger Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Im very surprised so little is being made of Cameron's "plan" to arm 70, 000 syrian rebels as part of this vote...this can only greatly prolong the civil war and do nothing to stop I si s ... Its very clear we are only being fed propaganda and are actually doing the bare minimum to stop I s is ...Turkey and Israel are giving them clandestine support. .so usa must likewise be doing the same. The minimal effect bombing is just for the benefit of home audiences. The real agenda remains getting rid of Ass ad. As demonstrated by Cameron's 70, 000 plans. If we really wanted to solve Syria the only viable solution is giving Putin full backing until he can get the civil war ended and Syria relatively stable. As sad might then consider an exit strategy managed by russia.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Party politics is a problem, but we shouldn't be dropping bombs on Syria, irrespective of how each party goes about their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 The Solution is letting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Kurds take out ISIS aided by Co-ordinated air strikes preferably by Russia (the only country bombing with permission from the government). A lot of the fighters are mercenaries from other countries and not actually Syrian, privateers for one power or another. However that strategy involves strengthening Shia's and Israel's neighbours,and keeps Assad in power. Which Saudi/Qatari/Turk/Israel do not want. Folk are trying to have their cake and eat it, and folk are dying in their thousands cause of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The Solution is letting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Kurds take out ISIS aided by Co-ordinated air strikes preferably by Russia (the only country bombing with permission from the government). A lot of the fighters are mercenaries from other countries and not actually Syrian, privateers for one power or another. However that strategy involves strengthening Shia's and Israel's neighbours,and keeps Assad in power. Which Saudi/Qatari/Turk/Israel do not want. Folk are trying to have their cake and eat it, and folk are dying in their thousands cause of it. How much of a bad guy is Assad though? I've noticed recently a ramp-up of reporting (Recent QT and C4 news tonight off the top of my head) of actual Syrians (uk based) being critical of Assad as being more of a problem than ISIS. No doubt conforming to their own agenda, our Gov agenda and subsequent media agenda. But ... How much of a problem is Assad?? I know the chemical weapons story and 2-sided blame game, the West arming 'moderate' Rebels and Saudi/Turkey/Israel perspective. The West don't seem to be willing to accept the simplified resolution that you've suggested because of Assad. If regime change is a foregone conclusion for progression then the powers (inc. Russia) need to hammer it out pronto if they are to unify some form of direction of Syria and against ISIS. Too many conflicting interests no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't even know what Assad looks like. What a rubbish enemy of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 How much of a bad guy is Assad though? I've noticed recently a ramp-up of reporting (Recent QT and C4 news tonight off the top of my head) of actual Syrians (uk based) being critical of Assad as being more of a problem than ISIS. No doubt conforming to their own agenda, our Gov agenda and subsequent media agenda. But ... How much of a problem is Assad?? I know the chemical weapons story and 2-sided blame game, the West arming 'moderate' Rebels and Saudi/Turkey/Israel perspective. The West don't seem to be willing to accept the simplified resolution that you've suggested because of Assad. If regime change is a foregone conclusion for progression then the powers (inc. Russia) need to hammer it out pronto if they are to unify some form of direction of Syria and against ISIS. Too many conflicting interests no doubt. He's pretty bad, we used to send prisoners to him so he could torture them for us. Since we don't condone torture. the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Sweden and Kyrgyzstan – have been singled out for violating international human rights conventions by deporting terrorist suspects to countries such as Egypt, Syria, Algeria and Uzbekistan, where they may have been tortured. http://www.ipsnews.net/2005/11/rights-un-blasts-practice-of-outsourcing-torture/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 54 + 2 robots doing what HQ says. Won't criticise. Won't debate. Power centralised. Amusing irony from Likudnik Al. No need to ask what action you favour eh. Is it bomb the mozzers is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitre Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 If they manage to root ISIS out eventually I think they need to review the state borders which were set up after WWI and the decline of the Ottomans. It's fair to say that Britain & France made a total arse of it with the partitioning and creation of new nation states which did not suit the populace. Split the areas down into areas based on religious lines, give the Kurds their homeland etc. Basically start again. Instead of bombing out the place, spend the money on rebuilding it and arm up the new territories armies to be self sufficient in defence of their (new) homeland. Then if they mess up in the future and start scrapping again just leave them to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernscum Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Amusing irony from Likudnik Al. No need to ask what action you favour eh. Is it bomb the mozzers is it. Obviously. Similar action has been an unqualified success in recent times, so this intervention will being nothing but good news and safety to the citizens of both Syria and the United Kingdom. Don't forget all the brilliant, brimstone bombs are "personalised" nowadays. What could possibly go wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Amusing irony from Likudnik Al. No need to ask what action you favour eh. Is it bomb the mozzers is it. Is Likednik a reference to Israeli politics? I think bringing Israel and from that Judaism into the debate adds nothing and clouds your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 How many of the SNP MPs individually support air strikes regardless of the SNP whip ? We'll never know. They sign an agreement to never criticise the party regardless of personal beliefs or constituent demands. Representation of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Always worth remembering what you vote for when you vote Tory.... Dave Cameron is a lap dog to Obama and Obama is a lap dog to the lobby. Which is why the middle east is being Yinon'ized country by country. If Russia had not intervened Syria would be a smoking ruin right now and we would be facing a far worse refugee problem than now. That is conservative rule for you. Yaaaay... Remember Gove screaming at MP's after they had voted down bombing the country. Imagine the fukking mess had they won that vote... nutcases. By 2009, according to the Channel 4 documentary Dispatches – Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, around 80% of Conservative MPs were members of the CFI.[2] In 2013, Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator called CFI “by far Britain’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group”, which “acts as if every Jew in the country is a Likud supporter. The same is true of AIPAC in the US.”[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel Likudnik Al seems to have missed this earlier post detailing the wholesale corruption of his glorious Conservative Party's middle east policy. Yes Al let's keep Israel ourt of this. Is it ISIS that Dave is doing it for or the lobby? Hard to say when it comes to the Tories as they have their hands in so many pockets. Edited December 1, 2015 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The SNP under Salmond called a referendum at the first chance they had despite no poll anywhere showing a majority of support for it. That is the very definition of what is called standing up for your beliefs and seeing through on what you promised. Corbyn on the other hand has been around for 10 minutes and he has poofed out of every major principle he has ever been tested on. Independence v 'Socialism'. No contest. There's no real equivalence there. The SNP had long ago settled its internal factionalism, though it took years. Corbyn's election is the beginning of a long road, and attempting to whip recalcitrant members of the PLP on this would have likely led to it all imploding with a swathe of shadow cabinet resignations and all the media shitstorm that follows. Either way Syria likely gets bombed. In a lose-lose situation it makes sense to look at longer term. As for Salmond's principles, he vacillated on the currency issue, flipping from post-independence adoption of the Euro to whatever unformed sterling-sharing pipedream was being posited by the end. A strong, principled stance on an independent currency might well have made no difference to the result, but it would have been a stronger position to defend at the time and provided a firm base from which to build a position for next time around. Corbyn is dealing with a PLP largely formed of those who were seduced into New Labour during the Blair and Brown years. He has to allow the new membership to change the profile of the parliamentary party and it will take time. Falling on his sword now would have rendered it impossible. The Corbyn hate-fest indulged in by some on here mirrors that of the MSM that the same folk are the first to attack. It's weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 There's no real equivalence there. The SNP had long ago settled its internal factionalism, though it took years. Corbyn's election is the beginning of a long road, and attempting to whip recalcitrant members of the PLP on this would have likely led to it all imploding with a swathe of shadow cabinet resignations and all the media shitstorm that follows. Either way Syria likely gets bombed. In a lose-lose situation it makes sense to look at longer term. As for Salmond's principles, he vacillated on the currency issue, flipping from post-independence adoption of the Euro to whatever unformed sterling-sharing pipedream was being posited by the end. A strong, principled stance on an independent currency might well have made no difference to the result, but it would have been a stronger position to defend at the time and provided a firm base from which to build a position for next time around. Corbyn is dealing with a PLP largely formed of those who were seduced into New Labour during the Blair and Brown years. He has to allow the new membership to change the profile of the parliamentary party and it will take time. Falling on his sword now would have rendered it impossible. The Corbyn hate-fest indulged in by some on here mirrors that of the MSM that the same folk are the first to attack. It's weird. An excellent post Donny . I realise that the majority of Scots only realised that politics was a thing in 2011, but the ignorance of democratic process being displayed is startling and bordering on fascist. I'm fairly sure back when the SNP was a Social Democratic party there would have been similar turmoil when Alex Salmond took over as leader... I don't know how many times he'd been kicked out the party, but at least once that I'm aware of. Obviously on a much much smaller scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The Corbyn hate-fest indulged in by some on here mirrors that of the MSM that the same folk are the first to attack. It's weird. It's not Corbyn, per-se. It's hatred of a Labour Party who stood side-by-side with the Tories, belittling Scotland at every available opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I can see Corbyn's predicament: even if he managed to whip all his MPs would there be enough Tory rebels to defeat the motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisegerwind Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 "I realise that the majority of Scots only realised that politics was a thing in 2011". Nice. Those would be the same Scots that kept UK labour in power all those years, despite being shat upon from a great height. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I can see Corbyn's predicament: even if he managed to whip all his MPs would there be enough Tory rebels to defeat the motion? Probably not, but I don't think that's the point that Comrade Corbyns critics are seizing upon. The Labour party are the opposition, despite what that moron Angus Robertson says There is no way in hell that any leader, Socialist, Blairite or moderate... Not one, would have been able to 100% whip the Labour Party either way on airstrikes, the Labour party allows dissent and disagreement. The Shadow Cabinet is another matter, they have collective responsibility to the leadership and the leadership opposes airstrikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 "I realise that the majority of Scots only realised that politics was a thing in 2011". Nice. Those would be the same Scots that kept UK labour in power all those years, despite being shat upon from a great height. Absolutely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't understand Corbyn's tactics on this one. Why did he have to decide anything right now (unless he has been "got at"). Why play into Cameron's hands by deciding now whether to whip his MPs? There isn't even anything on the table to vote for, or against, yet. Why didn't he just say that he has had his discussions within the party and based those discussions he will decide what to do IF and when any vote is brought to the HoC. He could have forced Cameron to take a wee gamble on whether to have a vote or not. This is a decision that Corbyn may never have had to take if Cameron didn't have the baws to take a chance. Now Cameron knows he will get the vote through before he has even asked the question. Something else is going on behind the scenes here, that we don't know about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.