The Political Thread

[Modern Panther]

Another brilliant example of the blairites at work.  Cornyn doesn't enforce the whip, the media can claim he's lost control of the party...he does, and he's enforcing his own unpopular views and supporting terrorists. 

Ideally, he would have come out a few days ago and said that he would be allowing a free vote, but that his mp's should remember that he was swept to power on an anti-war stance.  Let the fuckers vote for war, then publicly humiliate them as tory-lackies.

On a side note, the media in Scotland is having a field day because Alex Salmond didn't go to the debate, instead going to the unveiling of his official portrait, the selfish bastard.  They've mostly ignored the fact that he actually spent most of the day hosting an official function for armed services personnel and veterans.

[Theblazeuk]

It's sad but inevitable when the guarantee of a misquote and a hatchet job is always there if you say truthful things. It's safer to be torn than to stand against the accepted wisdom. Ken Livingstone just got a load of stick for saying that religiously motivated suicide bombers "died for their beliefs", as it's presented as though he's defending their actions.


And I don't like Alex Salmond particularly but yeah, took 5 articles before any mention of that day was made whatsoever. Ergh.

[JPMaybe]

The argument that we should bomb Syria because ISIS are a threat to us really, really puzzles me.  I can at least understand the moral argument that they're particularly, egregiously evil and thus military action might be necessary, even if I think bombing cities would be a piss-poor method. 

But the idea that there's a direct link between bombing there and reducing the chances of an attack here I find risible; it's something straight from WWII where you could draw a direct link between degrading the enemy's force projection capabilities and protecting your own people.  When your enemy has no force projection, other than haphazard, sporadic suicide attacks then there's fuck all link I can see between the two.  And given that, at worst, they can manage to kill a few hundred people potentially, I fail to see how the inevitable hundreds of civilian deaths bombing will cause justify it, even if there is a link.

I guess I'm just massively puzzled by what triggers people's threat detection.  It's like there's something worse about somebody dying from a terrorist attack maybe than, say, thousands of pensioners freezing to death because they can't afford fuel, or a woman being beaten to death by a partner she's stuck with because she can't afford to leave.

I realise I'm probably largely preaching to the choir here, but I'd appreciate people's thoughts. 

[TordelBack]

It does seem like a monstrous flaw in group psychology - 'we have to do something, let's kill some people' - without any analysis of what the outcome will be."Just make 'them' dead": a more misguided approach to asymmetric war cannot be imagined, and the accusation that any criticism of this represents namby pamby liberal weakness is equally fatal. I want these feckers dead and buried as much as the next man, but I'd like to see a plan that explains how this will be achieved before I started dropping bombs.

It makes me acutely conscious that the Cold War fear of tit-for-tat nuclear annihilation was well founded.

[IndigoPrime]

Something must be done. That's the mantra for pretty much everything. People swapping hideous child abuse images? CENSOR THE INTERNET, because something must be done, even though that course of action will not help. Terrorists bombed an ally? DROP A LOAD OF BOMBS, because something must be done, even though that course of action will not help. And so on.

There's no logic here. It's just lashing out, because a friend got hurt. Worse, it will cause further rifts in the international community, given that bombing will be an excuse to deal with each country's own grievances. And loads of innocents will die, unless you're Michael Fallon, who claims there have been no civilian casualties at all in Iraq this past yer as a result of air strikes.

It's also worth noting to anyone who says we should be bombing: it didn't help France. (And note how this is further fuelling the Tory plans to wreck the British state, with Matt Hancock now suggesting the public might have to choose between nuclear weapons and public services. We should have a telethon for Trident. That'd show just how 'popular' the bloody thing is.)

[TordelBack]

It's just lashing out, because a friend got hurt.

The sad part of this is that we have developed a vast and ancient system of justice to prevent exactly this (wholly understandable) reaction happening within our own borders - but for some reason the burden of proof, the impartiality of a judge and jury, the measured punishment (that for most of us actually excludes death), the aim of rehabilitation (although that last seems rather unpopular and prone to be forgotten), it all stops there once that border is crossed. 

Obviously I'm not suggesting that it's possible to meet international mass aggression with the restrictions of a domestic legal system, but surely the broad principles of restraint, of rational analysis, of calmly considered judgement should transfer when the stakes are so much higher than the life of one individual suspect or justice for a handful of victims.

[Old Tankie]

It's just panic, we must do something! Well I don't agree with it.

[The Legendary Shark]

In the same way that Hitler's target wasn't the Jews but the German people and Stalin's target wasn't the dissidents but the Russian people, the current target isn't terrorism - it's you.
.
These sad and appalling terrorist attacks, whatever their root, provide the perfect excuse for "governments" to curtail your powers, freedoms and rights.

[IndigoPrime]

Anyone see the astonishing Metro cover today, which is blaming Corbyn for the UK possibly going to war? It's because he's not a leader, see, and didn't force his party to vote as he wanted! Let's all ignore Cameron desperately wanting to blow things up, and the vast majority of Tories being onside! This is all Corbyn's fault, the bloody hippy warmongering pacifist!

[Professor Bear]

The Guardian is pushing the same line, despite splashing stories about demands for a free vote all over their paper for the last week.

I have a lot of time for Corbyn, but enough is enough - I want to see some deselections to see how these "lone voices of sanity" manage without the Labour brand to prop them up.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

So you want Labour to deselect some of their members who were voted in by Labour voters. Sounds like a less violent version of the Night of the Long Knives.

I'd like to see this as well, so then we can really see if this old version of Labour can stand on its own two feet.

I think that some people need to remember that only a fraction of the potential Labour voters out there actually voted for Corbyn in the Leadership event a couple of months ago.

I also find it hilarious that certain people are ripping into any Labour MP who dare say something against old Jezza, especially after how many times he voted against his own party!

[IndigoPrime]

I'd like to see this as well, so then we can really see if this old version of Labour can stand on its own two feet.

If it can't, British society is utterly fucked. Imagine if Liz Kendall was running Labour. We'd have two parties effectively fighting for two versions of the same thing. Corbyn at least provides opposition and an alternative.

I can't see it lasting. He'll be ousted in some manner, and whoever wins the next few elections (on gerrymandered FPTP, meaning the mandate will be even weaker), the press will without irony be slamming the government for eradicating benefits, killing the BBC, privatising the NHS, Channel 4 and even the roads, and letting big business and the rich get away with whatever the hell they please.

[Professor Bear]

So you want Labour to deselect some of their members who were voted in by Labour voters.

Shirley if they're "Labour voters" they voted for the party and not the candidate?

I think that some people need to remember that only a fraction of the potential Labour voters out there actually voted for Corbyn in the Leadership event a couple of months ago.

"Only a fraction of potential voters actually voted for the Tories", "only a fraction of potential voters voted for Tony Blair's Labour" and so on.  I can equally claim that "potential" Labour voters want our soldiers to take ballet lessons and prance into battle waving a sparkly wand in order to win ISIS over with The Power Of Love, but no-one can speak with certainty for the silent majority - the last election proved that.  Those who are signed-up Labour members, however, have made their feelings on Syria known with a certainty, and the vote at the Labour conference reflected that.  These MPs already agreed to oppose bombing Syria less than a month ago and what they're really bitching and whining about is being held to their word.
Leaving aside the moral arguments about war, if they emphasise more with their opposition than their own party leadership, if they actively undermine their party's chances to win, and if their word is worthless, then yes, why shouldn't they be deselected?

edit: God Damn You To Hell, Coloured Text

[Old Tankie]

Who's Shirley?

[COMMANDO FORCES]

If that's the way forward then they should've deselected Jezza ages ago as he wasn't part of the way the party was. It would be slightly hypocritical if he went this way.

As for voting, some people vote Labour because of the party, some because of their candidate (some local (probably many) MP's do sterling work in their local community) and some because of the leader. Obviously this doesn't include the die hard voters, who will only ever vote Labour.