Blah Blah

When you have children, it starts when that advent calendar comes out.

:D

I remember my mum watching that when I was a young child. I'd love to see some vaudaville come back.

Iraq is relevant because that created this whole vacuum (the leaders of IS are former ba'ath party henchmen for Saddam Hussein) and if we don't learn the lessons of the aftermath of that one then we have no hope of fixing anything in this one, which by and large is far more widespread and complex than Iraq ever was. To dismiss that as irrelevant is naive. Bombing without ground forces will change little. That's the point. It's why Cameron stressed this notion of an army of 70,000 locals. But there is no evidence of that, let alone any evidence of a co-ordinated organisaton of that. It can also be argued that more ground troops were needed to invade Iraq (an army with one aim and an identifiable chain of command) and to think that just 70,000 rebel troops (troops engaged in other fights elsewhere between Trukey and Assad) can clear an area bigger in size is optimistic at best. None of this is easy to solve and there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence.

A good candidate and a good campaign. As much as the media likes to cry doom for the Labour Party, the only real test is election results. It should silence some of the inner party detractors for now. A free vote followed by a good election result. What do they have to complain about?

Vote breakdown shows an increase voting share for Labour, up to 65% from 55% for Meacher. LAB +7% Tories -10% UKIP +3 Libdems stay the same. So not quite the disaster that the media was suggesting might happen. Very good result for Corbyn.

Labour have won, with a sizeable (but reduced) majority of about 10,000. Turnout was 40%. UKIP candidate is moaning that Labour were advantaged by their postal votes from the asian community - typical UKIP response to cry foul because ethnic minorities exorcise their right to vote. Yet again, much media fuss about nothing, in the run up. Good result for Labour. On the point about distance and war. It's easy for leaders to give battle orders when they are only looking at a map. When Cameron orders RAF strikes, he only sees a warplane and IS fighters in his imagination. He doesn't see Raqqa for example as a town like any other, with schools, hospitals, families just tryng to get by from day to day. I'd even go further and say that it's all made easier because he doesn't see those people as being anything like us. This is why a terrorist act in Paris invokes such anger, and the murder of 153 university students by an Afican Islamic Jihadi group the day before doesn't even raise an eyebrow. We do prioritise who we fight for, and who we fight is also determined by our 'impression' of the enemy.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Almost every Labour MP with ministerial experience voted for. Yes that seems to be the case. There is an air of 'we must help out our mates' in all of this. And that we should keep the illusion of being a great super power going even if in reality we are not. I think both Cameron and Blair share this vanity. It's about the dream of being a great international statesmen over common sense sometimes. I think if we get a year down the line and little has changed (and esp if things are worse), Cameron will find himself under fire.

I think that's the conclusion the allies have come too. Deal with IS first, Assad after. Harriet Harman voted for.

There are ground forces in Iraq. There are none in ISIL held Syria. We keep hearing about the stronghold of Raqqa. Who is going to take back that city? Anyone who thinks that tirbes that hate each other can be brought together to get rid of ISIL and then live peacefully side by side in the aftermath is in cloud cuckoo land. That is precisely why Iraq and Afghanistan are in the mess that they are. It is also why, as heinous as it is, you often end up with totalitarian dictatorships in government in the region. Libya is the perfect example of what kind of aftermath could be expected. Bombing is just a first stage that could end up with something that demands a full scale western military invasion. Who in the region is going to deliver stability? From Saudi to Iran, they are all pretty awful regimes.

397 to 223. We go to war :( That's a huge majority.

Agreed Fox. They are voting now. Cameron said he wanted to win any vote by a good margin originally. Public support (which wasn't much over 40% anyway) has been dropping away too.

Agreed, and he seems unwilling to apologise.

Yes that's how I took Cameron's comment too, that anyone against bombing Syria is a terrorist sympathiser. I think it's a completely unacceptable statement from a Prime Minister.

I think there's a lot of truth in that Fox. It's not just one thing or another, but the cumulative effect of a whole process. And that's part of the problem with the debate, and why nothing seems to change very much. We tend to say well if we drive less cars (and let's remember electricity has to be made using fuel, so electric cars don't solve the problem) then we'll reduce carbon footprint, but then we ignore all the beef we consume (not me though being a vegetarian). We waste so many resources, and energy in extracting them and we are all guilty of buying into the consumerist economies that drive it. It all has to change if anything is to change, but we know it won't.

What does that matter? It's all fossil fuel and all adds to greenhouse emissions. There is growing evidence of the environmental damage of fracking in some areas. It is not ignorant to point those out, nor is it ignorant to challenge the authorities that allow fracking companies for example to keep secret the cocktail of chemicals they force into the shale to extract the oil and gas. It's all bad and requires a shift of thinking away from it.

And therein I think is the real thinking behind Corbyn's decision to give a free vote. He has a strong conviction of where it's going to lead and is pretty much saying 'be it on your own head' if you vote for it. The other thing as well is the short memories of the Blairites, because it was the failed outcomes of the Iraq invasion that did for Tony Blair.

Completely agree Uncle. We all have a part to play from the top down.

:D ????. I think you may be right. I'm inclined to agree rahrah. Have never liked the whip thing. Cameron is whipping his party although I think there will be rebels for him too.

How can fracking be cleaner than coal when the aim of it is to extract a fossil fuel? It's end game is still to add to greenhouse gas. There are also environmental concerns. The cocktail of hundreds of chemicals, and the pollution of ground water. We really should be moving away from all kinds of fossil fuels.

We can add to that fracking, and even beefburgers! I was reading about the carbon footprint of beef production yesterday. It's something to behold. Truth is that it will take a radical shake up of pretty much everything we consume, too much of a shake up for the corporate billionaires facilitating most of the damage, and governments are beholden to them. The only question is when will we reach the 2 degree tipping point, not if.

I think he's spot on rahrah. Is Corbyn right to not use the whip? Cameron has no such qualms.

Today I read Stop the War Coalition's response to Cameron's speech on Syria this week. I think it makes some very valid points worthy of discussion. *Stop the War Coalition's response to David Cameron's case for bombing: *Stop the War believes that David Cameron's incoherent proposals for action in Syria will do nothing to weaken Isis but will instead inflame the civil war, deepen the misery of the Syrian people and increase the terrorist risk. We are urging MP's to consider carefully before voting to take Britain into our fourth war in fourteen years. *1) Strategy.* David Cameron failed completely to outline a coherent strategy to defeat Isis. He was unable to explain why British bombing will be any more effective than that which has been conducted by the much larger US forces with their allies over the last 13 months. The US admit that in that period Isis has been recruiting steadily and that it has gained territory in Syria. Cameron also failed to explain where ground forces might come from. Kurds will not fight outside their own territories. As Julian Lewis MP suggested, the estimate of 70,000 'moderate' Free Syrian Army troops appears to have been snatched out of the air. Al Jazeera estimates a figure of half that and reports that FSA forces are fragmented and demoralised. In their view the FSA 'has seen its power wane dramatically this year amid widespread desertions.' *2) Legality. *Cameron appears to accept that the fact that last week's UN resolution didn't have Chapter 7 status means it cannot be used to legitimise foreign attacks on Syria. He falls back on the self-defence argument. This is inapplicable. The right of self-defence applies to a foreign state invasion, not reported attempts at attacks by handfuls of terrorists. *3) Civilian casualties. *As before every new war David Cameron tells us that modern weapons have 'extraordinary precision' and will cause 'minimum collateral damage'. As ever these claims are belied by facts. The available research confirms hundreds of civilians have already been killed by coalition bombs. There are numerous individual reports of deaths caused by bombing, including one recent estimate of twenty killed by coalition raids on a Raqqa suburb. Despite the propaganda, drone attacks lead to high levels of civilian deaths. Recently a leading US general, Mike Flynn, pointed out that 'drone strikes have created more terrorists than they have killed.' Raqqa , which Cameron wants to be at the centre of British attacks, is a city already half devastated, with a population of 200,000 people. *4) Transition and negotiations. * There is a glaring contradiction between Cameron's claim to be prioritising a 'ceasefire' on the one hand and advocating military intervention on the other. Military action will complicate and hinder not hasten existing negotiations. The chaos of civil war is creating the conditions in which Isis can thrive. A political solution is necessary for people of the region to be able to tackle Isis. Adding fuel to the flames of that war makes such a solution more distant. *5) Dealing with terrorism.* David Cameron failed to answer questions about whether bombing Syria will make terrorist attacks in Britain more likely. The record of our interventions so far has not been good. The fourteen years that encompassed the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the bombing of Libya have seen the spread of jihadi terrorism from small pockets of Central Asia through a massive arc stretching from Lahore to Lagos. Now attacks are spreading to Europe. In the opinion of Eliza Mannigham-Buller, Director General of MI5 during the period of the invasion, Britain's involvement in Iraq, 'increased the terrorist threat by convincing more people ... that Islam was under attack'. If Britain embarks on a war against a fourth Muslim country, threat levels will rise. * **6) A safer world.* The Prime Minister claims that differences between the various forces intervening in Syria are closing, making co-operation easier. This is a fantastic claim impossible to reconcile with the recent shooting down by Turkey of a Russian plane and the subsequent attack on a Russian helicopter by Syrian rebels. David Cameron is asking MP's to vote to plunge Britain into a maelstrom of competing powers centred on Syria without any apparent co-ordination or plan. Russia, in particular, is apparently attacking the very forces with which Cameron wants us to co-operate. *7) The alternatives.* Bombing is not the only available foreign policy. Among the many positive measures that could be taken are isolating Isis and other jihadi groups by ending arms sales to the most reactionary and authoritarian regimes in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are countries that sponsor terrorist networks in Syria. We should also pressure Turkey to stop allowing its borders to be used for the supply of arms and fighters into Syria. Crucially Britain and the US should pursue rather than impede peace negotiations.

Pointless yes. What is the aim of these people? Most people are anonymous on forums. That's accepted. At best they are now trolling, at worst bullying, behind their own anonymity. That's the irony. Nothing to do with me, or my family.

I think that's how things may play out John. Corbyn will go. If the party find a way to keep him off the new ballot paper there will be a revolt from the membership, so they'll have to put up a candidate from the left that they think they can work with.