Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Bloody Hell you have a day out, fifty odd posts to trawl through. What a fabulous budget for the Marxist shadow cabinet. Good on you George you got lucky to be able to deliver it, but hey practice makes perfect :0) See Fred and his bitch Stan (come back GF all is forgiven) having thrombis on here today. Big TANK never lets me down for laughs, up the workers! LOL!!!

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has written to his MPs saying he cannot back UK air strikes in Syria - prompting a warning of shadow cabinet resignations.

Mr Corbyn rejected David Cameron's claim that targeting so-called Islamic State would make Britain safer.

His intervention - which puts him at odds with a number of his MPs - was criticised by a shadow cabinet member.

The frontbencher said there would be resignations if Mr Corbyn ordered the shadow cabinet to back his stance.

"There will be resignations among senior members of the shadow cabinet over this," the shadow cabinet member told BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith.

He said Mr Corbyn's letter had led to a breakdown of trust within the shadow cabinet, which had not been consulted before it was sent.

A British serviceman would be "insulted" by Mr Corbyn's "ridiculous party games" he said, adding: "We are becoming a complete joke."

Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn had earlier told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg he found the case for strikes "compelling".

Haze,

You are a bad joke.

As I wrote before, all votes in the HP should be conscience votes, especially when putting other people's lives at risk.

(What you put your life on the line for is up to you, but I bet you won't be going to Syria in the next couple of weeks.)

I disagree with Corbyn on many policies, but at least consider him to be an honest and thoughtful man, who at the least has honourable principles, unlike some political opportunists I could name.

Playing the game and following the leader may be useful on the playing fields of Eton, but many would expect a person elected to the HP capable of thinking and voting on the basis of information and consideration.

If the government loses a vote, submit it to a vote of confidence.

-=-=-=-=-=-=

Stan,

Do me a favour, if you agree with the gist of what I have written, C+P it.

Thanks.

Come on Stanley, look alive get to it. LOL!

There is only one joker on this thread and Freddy boy you rarely dissapoint! :0) More More!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/shadow-cabinet-seriously-split-over-syria-with-corbyn-in-minority

Labour leadership in turmoil over vote on UK military action in Syria

Jeremy Corbyn in minority as he plans to bypass his frontbench with appeal to parliamentary Labour party meeting on Monday

Jeremy Corbyn and shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn adopted sharply opposing views on UK military action against Islamic State hours after David Cameron argued it was time to extend bombing to Syria .

The Labour leader wrote to his MPs saying that the prime minister had failed earlier on Thursday to explain how an aerial campaign would protect UK security, setting up an intense debate in the party ahead of an expected Commons vote next week to broaden RAF airstrikes from Iraq to Syria. “I do not believe the prime minister’s current proposal for airstrikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it,” Corbyn wrote.

That set Corbyn at odds with Benn, who had earlier told a meeting of the shadow cabinet that the arguments in favour of extending the airstrikes were “compelling”. The shadow foreign secretary, who believes that the prime minister has fulfilled the conditions laid down in a motion passed at the Labour conference on Syria, also contradicted Corbyn in public.

Benn told the BBC: “We have heard compelling arguments both because of the threat to the United Kingdom and also because we are right to have been taking the action that we have in Iraq to support the Iraqi government in trying to repel the invasion from Isil/Daesh.”

This weekend Corbyn will seek to win the approval of the shadow cabinet to oppose an extension of the airstrikes. He is drawing up plans to reach over the heads of his frontbench with an appeal to a parliamentary Labour party meeting on Monday night, after winning the support of just four members of his shadow cabinet at a meeting on Thursday afternoon.

The early skirmishes between supporters of the new leader and the once mainstream former ministers in the shadow cabinet came after the prime minister set out the case for an extension of the airstrikes. In a lengthy statement, Cameron said the UK was already facing the threat of mass casualties from Isis and argued that Britain could not outsource its security to allies.

The prime minister, who was formally responding to a report by the commons foreign affairs select committee, which had opposed the airstrikes, told MPs: “We have to hit these terrorists in their heartlands right now and we must not shirk our responsibility for security, or hand it to others. Throughout our history, the United Kingdom has stood up to defend our values and our way of life. We can, and we must, do so again.”

H/S what are the answers to the questions?

fred - thoroughly agree with you for once ....... absolutely the vote re bombing in syria should be a free vote for all MPs

i haven't heard or read the arguments for either, but i am pretty sure that i'ld be in the "pro" camp despite doubts over its long-term effectiveness

nevertheless, doing nothing looks an even worse course, and would be akin to what happened when hitler was allowed to take over saarland and czech without anyone saying boo

despite the ultimate decision to stand up to hitler, even with the inevitable and foreseeable huge human cost,there remained a significant element within britain who would have remained on the sidelines or even supported a nazi regime

I would like Call Me to explain what the objectives are.

It wasn't long ago that he wanted to bomb Assad, and it took his own party to tell him to feck off.


What is the end game on this?

Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone blames Tony Blair for 7/7 bombings

i dare say that had you listened to the speech(es) or read the reports on it, your questions might have been answered - not that you then be obliged to agree with the conclusions of either side

the guardian takes no side - one pro; one anti; one neutral

on the other hand, corbyn looks (yet again) to have totally mismanaged the labour party and even his colleagues in the shadow cabinet
that he doesn't dare (pathetic excuses) show his face in oldham surely says quite a lot about the sort of reception he might have received

Go on then c, summarise the exact position.

Manuel,

Look at the precursor to WW2 and what allowed Hitler to gain "power".

As I have posted before I think it was a justifiable war against Hitler.

And though I would have preferred different "going to war" was a justifiable action by the "Allies", although the action could have started earlier. (But I wonder how much delay was due to the process of rearming.

-====--

I think Assad and ISIS and other "Barbaric" elements should be "removed", but would like to see a sensible association of different countries with a sensible plan of action and a feasible plan for after management rather than Bomb and Destroy indiscriminately.

-=-=-=-=-=

But what gets up my nose, is media concentration on Corbyn's position and reasoning without recognising there are multiple differences within the "tory" party.

I would like to see a "grown up" or adult form of government rather than "game playing" and "Yabooing" which "government" has become by a bunch of PR defectives.

-=-==-=

Also, the above applies to some members of the labour party, who have had their toys taken off them and behaving like emotionally retarded children.

My guess is, if Corbyn is "deposed" by the "at odds "right" wing fraction " then the labour party will split.

Corbyn, has ground level support for many of his ideas, and labour needs to rethink what their goals are and the pathway to those goals is. That needs time and they have 3years to do it.

When, the real effect of Osborne's "reforms" bite, his following may be even greater.

-==-=-=

Don't know, but it is interesting.

I think Assad and ISIS and other "Barbaric" elements should be "removed", but would like to see a sensible association of different countries with a sensible plan of action and a feasible plan for after management rather than Bomb and Destroy indiscriminately.

===============

can't disagree with that, but i don't think the world can afford to dither for months while various bits and pieces are discussed, batted about - and even then no unanimous or even broad agreement reached

on balance, i think, but without absolute conviction, that we should join the fray ...... meanwhile, i am certain that all sorts of high level discussion is indeed taking place between the leaders of the various countries

it's difficult to be in favour of allying with the russians, for a variety of reasons, but then there were considerable reasons for distrust before we joined forces in WW2 ..... sometimes it is a case of needs must when the devil drives

Here is a summation c, seeing as you don't have one.




Why Cameron's case for Syria airstrikes is highly contentious


There is no clear strategy, objective or endgame, with one US commander describing the campaign in Syria and Iraq as a stalemate



story here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrikes-cameron-case-highly-contentious

max - now try reading the whole and posting a balanced excerpt instead of "doing a fred"

>There is no clear strategy, objective or endgame, with one US commander describing the campaign in Syria and Iraq as a stalemate



Which will produce "resentment", "detachment", "alienation" of more of the "surviving" adolescents "justifying" and resorting to "terrorist" type actions in the M.E. and abroad against those who have replace their present oppressors with a new variety of oppressors.

Also, will see the controlling forces as the responsible for the chaos which will arise.

Up and at "em", kill the heathens, they are nor like us. Or are they?
=-=-=-=

I did read it c, it reads really well for boots on the ground approach.


In one indication of the strength of the forces Cameron has made so much of, the US spent $600m (about £400m) training rebels to go back over the border into Syria. In the end, only 58 went back. Asked in September at a Congressional committee how many of them were still fighting, General Lloyd Austin said: “We are talking four or five.”

my own views are set out clearly in 65413 and 65419

no doubt the usual suspects will keep batting this round and round and round for at least the next week

Is Cameron going to have a chat with Saudi, or is it birds of a feather:

Saudi Arabia 'to execute more than 50 convicted of terrorism'
26 November 2015
From the section Middle East


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34931205



Perhaps, he wants to sell them a few more pieces of armoury.

No principles, but good business!

a partial version of the actuality of course
nevertheless, horrendous brutality, almost certainly to send out a warning to the (fundamentalist?) opponents of the current regime

much more interesting of course, or at least in my opinion, is that every one of the gulf states is keeping its head well below the parapet in this IS conflict
that doesn't mean that covert aid to "the west" is not being given, and perhaps quite substantially, but of course every one of these gulf states is intrinsically unstable, each one having strong fundamentalist elements in the upper ranks