Jeremy Corbyn

Corbyn is effectively supporting the bombing of Syria with his actions, just not his words.

Yet another principle sacrificed to political expediency.

An impressive twisting of the truth there. You should consider writing for a tory tabloid, if you don’t already do so.

no no he is right

By not supporting the bombing and writing to the MPs saying he is not supporting the bombing its clear to any objective viewer that he is indeed effectively supporting it the slimy terrorists supporting beardy lefty vegetariana bastard…you just cannot trust him

An impressive twisting of the truth there.

More labour MP will vote against bombing if they are whipped. Corbyn can make this a 3 line whip if he so wishes.

The *only* reason not to is because it’s politically better to have a free vote than to make it whipped and suffer a ‘rebellion’.

He’s making the bombing a near certainty purely because it suits him politically.

No twisting there it’s just fact. His actions make bombing more likely, his words say he’s against bombing.

You should consider writing for a tory tabloid, if you don’t already do so.

The Gentic fallacy. Always worth a try when you know your argument is wrong.

Always worth a try when you know your argument is wrong.

You claim that Corbyn wants the vote to go in favour of bombing Syria.

I, and almost everyone else in the world, claims that Corbyn doesn’t want the vote to go in favour of bombing Syria.

And you reckon that I know I’m wrong?

Brilliant!

😆

Corbyn cannot whip his MPs as that will lead to cabinet resignations (you cannot vote against the whip if you are in the cabinet) and many backbenchers ignoring the whip. All of which would be a devastating blow to Corbyns leadership on his key personal issue. As such the fudge of a free vote is his only option

Incredibly UKIP believe they have a real chance of taking Oldham West based on the latest polling.

@jambalaya – careful with the ungood duckspeak – as St Jezza himself spake unto the masses:

“You don’t understand the new politics. Debate is not division.”

This is why all media statements must be cleared through his office and he announced that in future there must be stronger collective responsibility.

All of which would be a devastating blow to Corbyns leadership on his key personal issue.

How about the devastating blow to Cameron’s leadership when rebel Tory MPs humiliated him and voted with Labour against air strikes in 2013?

BTW I like the idea that Tory politicians are apparently going to phone Labour MPs and urge them to vote in favour of bombing Syria.

Imagine the situation where a Labour MP is unsure of how to vote but after receiving a phone call from a senior Tory decides to back the Tories.

“If only there was a Tory to tell me how to vote……” That is obviously what they are waiting for!

That’s the funny bit. The sad bit is that there are indeed quite possibly a few completely pointless Labour MPs who will only vote in favour if asked to do so by senior Tories – the exercise might not actually be futile.

It really is about time that all Labour MPs before a general election present themselves before their constituency parties and explain why they should be given the privilege to represent the party for another 5 years. And stop treating the job as a god-given right.

@ernie Cameron was sufficiently humiliated to win the next election outright. Parliament can see now that vote was the wrong thing to do hence the support today. Some reports this morning that the Shadow cabinet which is hugely in favour of airstrikes on IS (not the Stop the War language you are using) will try and force a Whip in favour of airstrikes. There will be a meeting on Mknday when Benn and others in the shadow cabinet will make the case for airstrikes. Labour MPs can worry about presenting themselves before their consituencies in 2019 and in any case I believe many Labour voters are in favour of airstrikes and many Stop the War types are Green voters.

Another peach 😀

You claim that Corbyn wants the vote to go in favour of bombing Syria.

Another Straw Man Fallacy. I was clearly saying for political expediency he’s going to make it a free vote for his party thus making bombing *far* more likely. Nothing to do with what Corbyn “wants” which is irrelevant to my point. (And seemingly irrelevant in general.)

Corbyn cannot whip his MPs as that will lead to cabinet resignations (you cannot vote against the whip if you are in the cabinet) and many backbenchers ignoring the whip.

That’s my view. And the view of all sane commentators I’ve read.

@ernie Cameron was sufficiently humiliated to win the next election outright.

You have now taken to negating your own views- it wont be devastating just as it was not for Dave 🙄

Parliament can see now that vote was the wrong thing to do hence the support today

well he is not certain he can get support yet is he or he would have put the vote to the house so you are somewhat mistaken on the support- they may well get there but there are clearly not there yet.
Secondly it was not wrong as they have changed sides on who they want to bomb so even the yes campaign have to accept it was not wrong.
Do you really want to argue it was wrong to not support ISIS…I am happy to hear your case …chuckles at your “insights”

your posts continue to be an awesome source of mirth if not logic.

Parliament can see now that vote was the wrong thing to do hence the support today.

I don’t see how you draw that conclusion since we’ve changed sides.

The vote against supporting the nutters by bombing Assad was the *right* thing to do.

This vote is about bombing the nutters to support Assad.

Bombing the nutters is (at the very least) less wrong than bombing Assad.

JY It’s my view the coalition including the UK would have bombed both Assad and IS, you can see the shift over the last 2 years where the focus has moved increasingly to IS. As soon as the airstrikes began in Iraq IS where turned back. With the Russian intervention the most expedient solution is to have Assad remain in power. The black sheep here is Turjey who have been attacking the Kurds who have been the most successful in combating IS on the ground.

Cameron hasn’t made the conflict his raison d’etre in the same as as Corbyn has made his chairmanship of Stop the War and his general posturing the whole centre piece of his political campaigning. A defeat on airstrikes so shortly after being elected leader with so many of his own party voting against his wishes is far more damaging than anything that has or might happen to Cameron. Cameron would survive a Leave vote in the EU referendum if he wished to stay on.

JY It’s my view the coalition would have bombed both Assad and IS

What shame the facts dont support your view- What a surprise eh
Here is the motion in full for you to ignore

Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
“Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
“Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
“Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
“Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity – and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
“Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to ‘overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible’;
“Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
“Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus. Whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;
“Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken. Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.
“Notes that this motion relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.”

As for the second part it sems clear that Dave is as keen to bomb them as Corbyn is for them not to If dave is not so set on it why all the dancing to make sure he wins the vote rather than just respecting the will of parliament who have already spoken and just put it before them?

I realise its daft to expect you to be even handed, though you complain others cannot do this 😯 , but clearly they both really care about their respective positions on this issue and all but the most blindly partisan can accept this fact

Finally he is the opposition with a minority of MPs he cannot really be “defeated” for two reasons
1. He is not proposing anything he is the opposition.
2. he has a minority so cannot win even with a full three way whip followed by all his MPS

Only dave can win or lose though corbyn can be ignored by his MP’s depending on what he says they should do – in reality it wont be a decision taken just by him anyway so its a mute point you make for tory fueled reasons.

Why am I having to explain this to you?
WHat am I bothering the actual facts dont enter jambylandfacts
.

It’s my view the coalition including the UK would have bombed both Assad and IS

The MPs were voting for/against air strikes in retaliation for Assad’s probable use of chemical weapons. Strikes on Assad. Can you can find a single source from the time that indicates anything else?

it seems clear that Dave is as keen to bomb them as Corbyn is for them not to

Dave doesn’t need a vote to order bombing of the rest of ISIS controlled turf, so if he *really* wanted to do it he could have used Paris as an excuse and changed policy the the day after that saying there was no time to consult parliament.

Which raises the possibility he doesn’t really want to do it. (Funny how last time both Cameron and Obama had votes that they lost – I thought at the time the votes were an excuse not to.)

I can’t decide if he wants to bomb because showing the US we are a reliable ally is important (for reasons I don’t understand) of if he’d rather have a vote because secretly he doesn’t want to *or* because he knows a vote (or the prospect of a vote) throws Labour into turmoil.

What ever is going on there’s no Military reason for Cameron to *want* to bomb Syria, it makes no odds whatsoever.

when parliament has already voted against it he would be on very very dodgy ground to bomb without asking parliament. It has said no and he cannot ignore its will even as PM

If he does not want to bomb Syria the easiest way to achieve this is to NOT ask for permission to do it – if he asks its because he wants to do it.

he would be on very very dodgy ground to bomb without asking parliament

He wouldn’t – If for some reason he feels we need to move some of our bombing to the other side of this imaginary line as PM he can just order it. It’s quite within his rights, and Paris was a perfect excuse.

Even if cost him some political capital, would he care? He’s not standing for PM again.

If he does not want to bomb Syria the easiest way to achieve this is to NOT ask for permission to do it

Having a vote and losing allows him to say to the US “Sorry but I tried.” and put all the media attention on Labour. If he wins that’s fine too, the badges on the bombers makes no difference on the ground whatsoever.

He wouldn’t – If for some reason he feels we need to move some of our bombing to the other side of this imaginary line as PM he can just order it. It’s quite within his rights, and Paris was a perfect excuse.

Well given he is asking parliament first clearly he agrees with me that the PM cannot just ignore the wishes of the parliament. He can of course do it but they then can vote him out of office for ignoring him and he knows this even if you dont

You are free to disagree with him as well as me.

Indeed what you say is true , though its not what you originally said – and he can just say we tried before but they wont let me – but the point i made was that of he does not want to he need not ask and this is true,
Secondly if he wants to lose he should just hold the vote and not campaign for a yes as he will lose easily.
Clearly he wants to do this and he is trying to win the vote. Its not credible to argue otherwise.

As polite as i can be here but you are ignoring what is happening and your view is utterly at odds with the actual facts and reality

He wouldn’t – If for some reason he feels we need to move some of our bombing to the other side of this imaginary line as PM he can just order it. It’s quite within his rights, and Paris was a perfect excuse.

This is an interesting interpretation of recent history – people seem to have quickly forgotten that Blair / Brown went into war without a parliamentary mandate to do so – David Cameron said this was wrong and that if he became Prime Minister he would seek parliamentary approval first even though as Prime Minister he doesn’t need to.

What happened 2 years ago is that a proposal was put to Parliament for military action in Iraq / Syria – it’s quite possible that had action been taken then Isil would not have been emboldened or able to seize the heavy military hardware they now possess. Due to some pretty shameful party politics Ed Miliband initially supported the action but then at the vote Labour MPs scuppered the parliamentary motion.

What happened after this is that David Cameron did what he said he would do – respected the parliamentary vote – and two years down the line we are now dealing with a much bigger problem where ISIL now has more land than the whole of the UK and tens of thousands of people have been brutally tortured and murdered in the interim.

I thought the vote 2 years ago was to bomb Assad?

The PM doesn’t have to ask parliament. He chose to do so in 2013 consistent with his views on democracy and it’s the same logic that meant he granted an independent referendum to Scotland after the SNP’s win at Holyrood. It’s his principals that mean he will not launch airstrikes in Syria without asking parliament for approval. Hollande hasn’t asked for approval to declare Framce is at war with IS thus invoking various support clauses in the EU treaty which REQUIRE other members to support France.

What happened 2 years ago is that a proposal was put to Parliament for military action in Iraq / Syria – it’s quite possible that had action been taken then Isil would not have been emboldened or able to seize the heavy military hardware they now possess.

the plan was to bomb Assad to help those who oppose them namely what has become ISIL

I cannot decide if this thread shows how little folk know or how quick they forget.

As for blaming the opposition the reality was, then as now, the govt could not command a majority of its own troops * and 30 tories and 9 lib Dems opposed it]]Ed was always against intervention

* which was also true of Blair on Iraq but they got through due to Tory support

jamby your post reads like a Tory party press release and, as always, you ignore all the points about you just being factually wrong even to the extent about who they were going to bomb

Somewhat pathetic approach to deabate

Will you ever have a debate or will you just state views at odds with reality] and ignore the facts Mr 100% correct- pbvs that is rhetorical as you wont reply but reay DD had a point how are you not embarrassed to be wrong on basic facts and to just keep posting without even addressing your glaring errors?

jambalaya – Member

The PM doesn’t have to ask parliament. He chose to do so in 2013 consistent with his views on democracy …………It’s his principals that mean he will not launch airstrikes in Syria without asking parliament for approval.

The Daily Telegraph doesn’t seem to agree with you :

David Cameron ‘knew British pilots were bombing Syria’

MoD admits UK personnel carry out Syrian bombings, despite Parliament not authorising action

Which explains a lot Cameron’s “views on democracy”.

Haha not even that was true 😆

Just bumped into him! He’s just having a wander around the climate March in London. He’s **very** popular here right now. Think he’s about to speak…

Rachel

So the guy that supports the coal miners and steelworkers and is also anti-nuclear is now trying to come over all green?

If I were him I’d be up in Oldham making sure I won that seat.

If I were him I’d be up in Oldham making sure I won that seat.

He is probably doing more good for the labour candidate staying away

Judging by the support he was getting in London earlier, it might be that He’s more popular than you think

Judging by the support he was getting in London earlier, it might be that He’s more popular than you think

Well, he is amongst friends.

But there is an underlying fear of corbyn as demonstrated here by the right wing nut jobs, I guess his deviation from the “there is no alternative” line and saying bombing with no endgame in sight is pretty pointless.

Not that eight tornado Gr4’s based in Cyprus are doing much anyway, which is probably the maximum the RAF can use due to the cuts to defence.

What happened 2 years ago is that a proposal was put to Parliament for military action in Iraq / Syria – it’s quite possible that had action been taken then Isil would not have been emboldened or able to seize the heavy military hardware they now possess.

lol think you got the wrong end of the stick there, the vote was whether or not to bomb Assad in support of rebel forces, so in effect our aircraft would have been flying in support of ISIL.

But there is an underlying fear of corbyn as demonstrated here by the right wing nut jobs,

The bombing to date in Syria has been very limited, perhaps a handful of very specific airstrikes not least to nail the two Brits who where responsible for the “cyber” stuff as well as recruitment. Something much more substantial is required.

IS where totally emboldened by the Obamas desperate desire to exit Iraq and in the full knowledge that the Iraqi army had no desire to fight especially the Sunnis. The airstrikes halted their progress and have wound it back but it would have been far better had they never captured the ground which would have been the case had the US remained on the ground backed up by the airforce.

Anyway, a large scale air campaign is now underway and it’s my view the parliamentary vote will be conclusively in support of us joining with many Labour MPs supporting. Many nations including those in the Middle East are part of the airstrikes campaign and it’s rather ridiculous we are not. It’s a done deal IMO.

As an aside on the day of the Syria debate Alex Salmond was in Edinburgh unveiling a portrait of himself. I assume he’ll make the time to be in London for the vote so he can oppose.

http://jeremycorbynlookingatthings.tumblr.com 😀

🙂

Indeed, can you see the transformation from rebel to establishment figure in that sequence too. Even as recently as the “national anthem debacle” he had a suit and tie but the tie was not done up properly. Then here is on TV today looking like a Chukka Umuna, a proper Red Tory 😀

BBC link

http://jeremycorbynlookingatthings.tumblr.com

The original was actually funny. As well as being, you know, original.

http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com

Indeed it is a compliment given you are so wound up by a simple statement of the obvious. At least Cornyn has had the sense to listen to his advisers that you can’t be seen as a party leader by the electorate dressed like a scruffy old sod.

Today will be a very interesting g day, whip or no whip. Resignations or no resignations.

you can’t be seen as a party leader by the electorate dressed like a scruffy old sod.

Most people won’t have a problem seeing a party leader dressed in casual clothes, depending on the circumstances, although I’m guessing that you probably do, dismissing it as “scruffy”.

Look at the transition though Ernie, first he ditched the t-shirt under, then brand new plain coloured shirts, then suit with tie not done up properly – at a memorial service ! Now the full squeaky clean look – very establishment

This will be a very interesting week

Monday – meetings with MPs and Shadown Cabinet, whip/no whip
Tuesday – shadow cabinet resignations ?
Wednesday – Airstrikes vote ?
Thursday – Oldham West by election
Friday – ?

Most people won’t have a problem seeing a party leader dressed in casual clothes, depending on the circumstances

Hmmm I wonder, JC needs to be mindful of how he is perceived. Like me you are old enough to remember the furore this appearance caused a few years ago – whether justified or not (apparently the Queen Mum complimented his choice of attire that day)