The Politics Thread

[thebish]

What I fail to understand is why the Corbyn Trotsky bastards didn't fook off and start their own party if they so hated Labour, two faced springs to mind.
Anyway I've probably better odds on the lottery win than them cnuts of ever forming a government, I suppose we could find a run down farm for them somewhere.

Corbyn has voted pretty consistently all his political life. Where on earth does the idea of him being "two faced" come from?

surely you are not just throwing random insults out of your pram from your big bag of sponge-backed hoboh insults? surely not???

never fear - your man of the future - Nigel AWESOME POWER Farage will soon rise from the ashes and lead us into the future with integrity, honesty and wisdom. why - even now he's the name on everyone's lips as he heroically leads (one of) the referendum OUT pressure groups... HUZZAHH!!

[Prufrock]

Read an interesting piece over the weekend arguing that this could be the first time an opposition leader has made it a free vote to allow himself to rebel.

Personally, given it seems were starting a convention rust we shouldn't go to war without parliamentary approval, I think it should always be a free vote. If going to war isn't a matter of conscience, I don't know what is. I also don't know how Corbyn would be begin to try to whip people whose supported war on that basis.

[Worthy4England]

The problem with war being a vote of conscience/free vote is manifold. On one hand there will be those people who want to head there as first base and at the other end of the extreme, there will be those folks would don't want to end there under any circumstances, with all shades in between. I don't believe my MP has ever asked what I thought of it one way or another, so them having any understanding of where my mandate would fall, is unknown to them, so I'm not convinced that they're anymore representative of me as "war cabinet". Nor do I think on a vote of conscience they're likely to take a fundamentally different stance than their conscience dictates.

The second facet is how much information is able to make it as far as all the MP's - not talking about the veracity of the information which was challenged post-Iraq, for example, anyhow - but whether they have all the information they would need to make an informed decision is a matter of conjecture (assuming they sat somewhere in the maybe/maybe not camp, rather than at the poles). They were clearly told Iraq had WMD's, Superguns etc. (but no muslamic rayguns) - they made a decision on that basis, it was the wrong basis from which to make a decision.

Generally I'm happy for our executive to make the decision, even though I might not always agree with it. Cameron is ducking the issue for me (at least Corbyn has articulated where he stands). He should call it as the Country's leader. Which is where I'd be trying to put him, were I Corbyn.

[Bruce Rioja]

See, one of you is going to have to explain this to me. Corbyn was backed to the hilt in the leadership election, no? and as far as I can see has never hidden his light under a bushel in relation to anything. So how come the toys are coming out of the pram regarding his stance on air strikes? Have his views all of a sudden caught the party members unaware?

[Prufrock]

The problem with war being a vote of conscience/free vote is manifold. On one hand there will be those people who want to head there as first base and at the other end of the extreme, there will be those folks would don't want to end there under any circumstances, with all shades in between. I don't believe my MP has ever asked what I thought of it one way or another, so them having any understanding of where my mandate would fall, is unknown to them, so I'm not convinced that they're anymore representative of me as "war cabinet". Nor do I think on a vote of conscience they're likely to take a fundamentally different stance than their conscience dictates.

The second facet is how much information is able to make it as far as all the MP's - not talking about the veracity of the information which was challenged post-Iraq, for example, anyhow - but whether they have all the information they would need to make an informed decision is a matter of conjecture (assuming they sat somewhere in the maybe/maybe not camp, rather than at the poles). They were clearly told Iraq had WMD's, Superguns etc. (but no muslamic rayguns) - they made a decision on that basis, it was the wrong basis from which to make a decision.

Generally I'm happy for our executive to make the decision, even though I might not always agree with it. Cameron is ducking the issue for me (at least Corbyn has articulated where he stands). He should call it as the Country's leader. Which is where I'd be trying to put him, were I Corbyn.

I actually agree wholeheartedly. Should be an executive decision. However, since Iraq (poss before) it seems we now have to have a vote on it. IF we are doing it that way, I can't see how there's an argument for it to be a whipped vote. It's not a party issue.

[Prufrock]

See, one of you is going to have to explain this to me. Corbyn was backed to the hilt in the leadership election, no? and as far as I can see has never hidden his light under a bushel in relation to anything. So how come the toys are coming out of the pram regarding his stance on air strikes? Have his views all of a sudden caught the party members unaware?

Not by the MPs who are kicking off, no!

TBF I'm not sure it's his stance so much as the idea of him imposing the whip. He voted against the whip over 500 times including on the Iraq war. How does he tell an MP who disagrees with him on this that they can't listen to their own conscience?

[thebish]

See, one of you is going to have to explain this to me. Corbyn was backed to the hilt in the leadership election, no? and as far as I can see has never hidden his light under a bushel in relation to anything. So how come the toys are coming out of the pram regarding his stance on air strikes? Have his views all of a sudden caught the party members unaware?

Not by the MPs who are kicking off, no!

TBF I'm not sure it's his stance so much as the idea of him imposing the whip. He voted against the whip over 500 times including on the Iraq war. How does he tell an MP who disagrees with him on this that they can't listen to their own conscience?

has he imposed a whip? not yet - so the toys out of pram can't be about that, can it??

[Worthy4England]

The problem with war being a vote of conscience/free vote is manifold. On one hand there will be those people who want to head there as first base and at the other end of the extreme, there will be those folks would don't want to end there under any circumstances, with all shades in between. I don't believe my MP has ever asked what I thought of it one way or another, so them having any understanding of where my mandate would fall, is unknown to them, so I'm not convinced that they're anymore representative of me as "war cabinet". Nor do I think on a vote of conscience they're likely to take a fundamentally different stance than their conscience dictates.

The second facet is how much information is able to make it as far as all the MP's - not talking about the veracity of the information which was challenged post-Iraq, for example, anyhow - but whether they have all the information they would need to make an informed decision is a matter of conjecture (assuming they sat somewhere in the maybe/maybe not camp, rather than at the poles). They were clearly told Iraq had WMD's, Superguns etc. (but no muslamic rayguns) - they made a decision on that basis, it was the wrong basis from which to make a decision.

Generally I'm happy for our executive to make the decision, even though I might not always agree with it. Cameron is ducking the issue for me (at least Corbyn has articulated where he stands). He should call it as the Country's leader. Which is where I'd be trying to put him, were I Corbyn.

I actually agree wholeheartedly. Should be an executive decision. However, since Iraq (poss before) it seems we now have to have a vote on it. IF we are doing it that way, I can't see how there's an argument for it to be a whipped vote. It's not a party issue.

I'm not sure that we do have to have a vote on it? I don't believe there's any legislation that is forcing the Government to vote on it, Cameron is choosing to vote on it. He could, as far as I'm aware make a decision himself as PM.

[thebish]

Cameron knows these things:

1. adding to the bombers coalition won't make any difference at all - many reports suggest there are already far more planes with bombs up in the air over Syria than there are targets to hit

2. a bombing campaign cannot be successful against ISIS without "boots on the ground". Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 opposition troops ready to be those "boots on the ground" has been widely dismissed as utter tosh by anyone I have heard who knows anything about the actual situation on the ground. It is - if you like - his war argument equivalent to Tony Blair's "45 minutes from nuclear attack" claim.

once again - British MPs will be deceived and go to war based on a false claim.

[Prufrock]

The problem with war being a vote of conscience/free vote is manifold. On one hand there will be those people who want to head there as first base and at the other end of the extreme, there will be those folks would don't want to end there under any circumstances, with all shades in between. I don't believe my MP has ever asked what I thought of it one way or another, so them having any understanding of where my mandate would fall, is unknown to them, so I'm not convinced that they're anymore representative of me as "war cabinet". Nor do I think on a vote of conscience they're likely to take a fundamentally different stance than their conscience dictates.

The second facet is how much information is able to make it as far as all the MP's - not talking about the veracity of the information which was challenged post-Iraq, for example, anyhow - but whether they have all the information they would need to make an informed decision is a matter of conjecture (assuming they sat somewhere in the maybe/maybe not camp, rather than at the poles). They were clearly told Iraq had WMD's, Superguns etc. (but no muslamic rayguns) - they made a decision on that basis, it was the wrong basis from which to make a decision.

Generally I'm happy for our executive to make the decision, even though I might not always agree with it. Cameron is ducking the issue for me (at least Corbyn has articulated where he stands). He should call it as the Country's leader. Which is where I'd be trying to put him, were I Corbyn.

I actually agree wholeheartedly. Should be an executive decision. However, since Iraq (poss before) it seems we now have to have a vote on it. IF we are doing it that way, I can't see how there's an argument for it to be a whipped vote. It's not a party issue.

I'm not sure that we do have to have a vote on it? I don't believe there's any legislation that is forcing the Government to vote on it, Cameron is choosing to vote on it. He could, as far as I'm aware make a decision himself as PM.

I'm not sure there is a real answer to that!

Historically going to war has been a royal prerogative power exercised on Queenie's behalf by the Govt. However after there was a vote on Iraq, and a vote on Syria the first time it's arguable there is now a convention that the Govt will go to Parliament before going to war.

The joys of an unwritten constitution!

[thebish]

it seems Labour MPs will have a free vote...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Historically going to war has been a royal prerogative power exercised on Queenie's behalf by the Govt. However after there was a vote on Iraq, and a vote on Syria the first time it's arguable there is now a convention that the Govt will go to Parliament before going to war.

The joys of an unwritten constitution!

Surely not a convention, Pru, and even as a precedent it is rather horrible. We couldn't make an agreement with any sort of teeth. Can you imagine a treaty term that says we will defend the territorial integrity of Poland or Belgium if the vote in Parliament goes the right way? Or we will defend the people of the Falklands to the end, provided we still have a majority?

[Hoboh]

Cameron knows these things:

1. adding to the bombers coalition won't make any difference at all - many reports suggest there are already far more planes with bombs up in the air over Syria than there are targets to hit

2. a bombing campaign cannot be successful against ISIS without "boots on the ground". Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 opposition troops ready to be those "boots on the ground" has been widely dismissed as utter tosh by anyone I have heard who knows anything about the actual situation on the ground. It is - if you like - his war argument equivalent to Tony Blair's "45 minutes from nuclear attack" claim.

once again - British MPs will be deceived and go to war based on a false claim.

Agreed.
One very large problem with Dave's 70,000 is the Russians are busy blowing the sh*t out of them.
Still, it does not excuse Comrade Corbyn from trying to do a 'Chamberlin' though.

[Hoboh]

In other news,
old McDonnell has another day off from the farm calling 4,000,000 voters, many of them ex labour by saying they are voting for an evil force, UKIP.
Clearly the man is a plank and once the leftie dregs have had their day and a moderate opposition party emerges, I look forward to a bacon sandwich.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Athers]

How can Labour possibly not win the Oldham by-election by a huge majority? Corbyn has re-engaged a tidal wave of disenfranchised lefties and is leading a brave new political revolution?

Who was the guy on here who kept arguing that? I forget....

I bet they'll say Jim McMahon is a red Tory


I read this a couple months back, it's a positive write up of the guy. He may be the only reason they don't lose

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... -maquisard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

Cameron knows these things:

1. adding to the bombers coalition won't make any difference at all - many reports suggest there are already far more planes with bombs up in the air over Syria than there are targets to hit

2. a bombing campaign cannot be successful against ISIS without "boots on the ground". Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 opposition troops ready to be those "boots on the ground" has been widely dismissed as utter tosh by anyone I have heard who knows anything about the actual situation on the ground. It is - if you like - his war argument equivalent to Tony Blair's "45 minutes from nuclear attack" claim.

once again - British MPs will be deceived and go to war based on a false claim.

Agreed.

oh bollox - now I'll have to reconsider!!

[Worthy4England]

The problem with war being a vote of conscience/free vote is manifold. On one hand there will be those people who want to head there as first base and at the other end of the extreme, there will be those folks would don't want to end there under any circumstances, with all shades in between. I don't believe my MP has ever asked what I thought of it one way or another, so them having any understanding of where my mandate would fall, is unknown to them, so I'm not convinced that they're anymore representative of me as "war cabinet". Nor do I think on a vote of conscience they're likely to take a fundamentally different stance than their conscience dictates.

The second facet is how much information is able to make it as far as all the MP's - not talking about the veracity of the information which was challenged post-Iraq, for example, anyhow - but whether they have all the information they would need to make an informed decision is a matter of conjecture (assuming they sat somewhere in the maybe/maybe not camp, rather than at the poles). They were clearly told Iraq had WMD's, Superguns etc. (but no muslamic rayguns) - they made a decision on that basis, it was the wrong basis from which to make a decision.

Generally I'm happy for our executive to make the decision, even though I might not always agree with it. Cameron is ducking the issue for me (at least Corbyn has articulated where he stands). He should call it as the Country's leader. Which is where I'd be trying to put him, were I Corbyn.

I actually agree wholeheartedly. Should be an executive decision. However, since Iraq (poss before) it seems we now have to have a vote on it. IF we are doing it that way, I can't see how there's an argument for it to be a whipped vote. It's not a party issue.

I'm not sure that we do have to have a vote on it? I don't believe there's any legislation that is forcing the Government to vote on it, Cameron is choosing to vote on it. He could, as far as I'm aware make a decision himself as PM.

I'm not sure there is a real answer to that!

Historically going to war has been a royal prerogative power exercised on Queenie's behalf by the Govt. However after there was a vote on Iraq, and a vote on Syria the first time it's arguable there is now a convention that the Govt will go to Parliament before going to war.

The joys of an unwritten constitution!

So the only reason there's a vote, is because Cameron won't bite the bullet and say "we're going in" - which does rather raise the question how compelling the need to go in actually is.

To me he's said "we need to", so he should order it using his executive power. He's clearly trying to ensure that no sh*t sticks to him either way at the minute, so in reality us bombing ISIL in Syria seems to be less important than whether any shit attaches itself to Cameron because he ordered us to do so. Hardly very compelling and not very good in terms of leadership.

[thebish]

Historically going to war has been a royal prerogative power exercised on Queenie's behalf by the Govt. However after there was a vote on Iraq, and a vote on Syria the first time it's arguable there is now a convention that the Govt will go to Parliament before going to war.

The joys of an unwritten constitution!

Surely not a convention, Pru, and even as a precedent it is rather horrible. We couldn't make an agreement with any sort of teeth. Can you imagine a treaty term that says we will defend the territorial integrity of Poland or Belgium if the vote in Parliament goes the right way? Or we will defend the people of the Falklands to the end, provided we still have a majority?

I'm not sure how much more "toothy" an agreement or treaty would be when you add "if we happen to have a prime minister in power who is minded to go to war to defend you." amounts to the same thing, surely?

[thebish]

So the only reason there's a vote, is because Cameron won't bite the bullet and say "we're going in" - which does rather raise the question how compelling the need to go in actually is.

To me he's said "we need to", so he should order it using his executive power. He's clearly trying to ensure that no sh*t sticks to him either way at the minute, so in reality us bombing ISIL in Syria seems to be less important than whether any shit attaches itself to Cameron because he ordered us to do so. Hardly very compelling and not very good in terms of leadership.

indeed... but then who wants the kind of shit that stuck itself to Blair following his decisions? that will haunt PMs for a while to come - they are not stupid to distance and insulate themselves personally from the decision...

for Cameron it's about looking tough - but taking no blame should it go south...

I AM a bit fed up by Fallon telling us..

1) there could be a Paris-style attack on the streets of London
therefore
2) we should bomb Syria

when quite clearly..

1) if it is a paris-style attack - the bombers and shooters will be already living in the UK
2) after bombing syria - there is STILL every chancwe of a paris style attack on London.

unless he is promising us that in bombing Syria there WON'T be a paris-style attack on London - which would be a very bold thing to say! the very least thing he could outline is WHY bombing syria makes a paris-style attack on London less likely...

[bobo the clown]

^^ Not that this will stop "certain types" from claiming, should an attack later occur, that this was BECAUSE of any bombing. It will, of course, be nothing of the sort.