The Politics Thread

[Guest MattP]

Angus Robertson spending ten minutes on lecturing us why we should call ISIL Daesh as it's nothing to do with Islam. Completely missing the point that Daesh means Islamic State in Arabic.

[Guest MattP]

A couple of posts from the fantastic Maajid Nawaz regarding it.

 

[MooseBreath]

The reason we didn't attack the USSR,China or N Korea is because it would have led to nuclear war. We do what we can and do as little damage as possible.

Fair point on those countries but there's still Burma, Cambodia, numerous parts of Africa like Rwanda, Sierra Leone etc who didn't have nukes but where we didn't/don't get involved.

With regards to doing as little damage as possible, we've never seemed to have much idea what kind of medium and long term damage our interventions in the middle east were going to do and I don't think we can say with any confidence that things in Syria will be any less damaged in a years or five years time should we decide to go ahead with the air Strokes.

[Guest MattP]

Best speech of the day from Margaret Beckett, she made the case for air strikes better than Cameron did.

[Bettsj2]

John Baron making a lot of sense here.

Needs so much more than airstrikes but nobody wants to talk about it.

[Guest MattP]

He was excellent wasn't he?

Ironic that the best speech for the strikes has came from Labour and the best one against it has came from a Tory.

[Bettsj2]

Alan Johnson makes his position not just on this but with the Labour party very clear!

[Bettsj2]

He was excellent wasn't he?

Ironic that the best speech for the strikes has came from Labour and the best one against it has came from a Tory.

Unbelievable really.

Julian Lewis making case for ground troops.

Find myself agreeing. Airstrikes followed by a huge ground force of 100,000 plus to flush them out.

[Guest MattP]

Alan Johnson makes his position not just on this but with the Labour party very clear!

 

That was pretty brutal wasn't it?! "I wish I had the self-righteousness of our finger-jabbing colleagues who promote newer, kinder politics, who no doubt I'll be getting a few calls off tonight"

 

You do wonder just how bad this is behind the scenes.

[Guest MattP]

Following on from Alan Johnston, poor Stella Creasy

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syrian-air-strikes-labour-mp-stella-creasy-walk-out-leave-commons-debate-abusive-phone-calls-staff-a6757226.html

 

Labour MP Stella Creasy says she was forced to walk out of the House of Commons debate on air strikes in Syria because people are ringing her offices and abusing her staff.

It comes after the Walthamstow MP faced a protest in her  constituency on Tuesday night.

Ms Creasy, who insists she is yet to make up her mind on the Syria vote, tweeted: “For christs sake - I want to listen to debate in chamber but people ringing my office abusing my staff so dipping out to check ok!”

 

Someone inside the Labour party really need to get a hold of this and quickly, when this "experiment" comes to a end it;s going to be a long way back, if will be even longer if they have kicked or forced out all the moderate talented MP's, if it is being encouraged by central office then they really should be ashamed.

[Jon the Hat]

Unbelievable really.

Julian Lewis making case for ground troops.

Find myself agreeing. Airstrikes followed by a huge ground force of 100,000 plus to flush them out.

 

It would work, sadly neither us or the US are going to go for it until the inevitable domestic attack.

[Jon the Hat]

Following on from Alan Johnston, poor Stella Creasy

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syrian-air-strikes-labour-mp-stella-creasy-walk-out-leave-commons-debate-abusive-phone-calls-staff-a6757226.html

 

 

Someone inside the Labour party really need to get a hold of this and quickly, when this "experiment" comes to a end it;s going to be a long way back, if will be even longer if they have kicked or forced out all the moderate talented MP's, if it is being encouraged by central office then they really should be ashamed.

 

If I was in charge of the Lib Dems I would be pushing hard to recruit all the sensible Labour MPs.

[Guest MattP]

If I was in charge of the Lib Dems I would be pushing hard to recruit all the sensible Labour MPs.

 

Every single other party should be sniffing around Creasy, Hunt, Bradshaw, Jarvis, Umanna, Mann, Woodcock etc - there is some serious talent there and it could be up for grabs very shortly.

[Bettsj2]

It would work, sadly neither us or the US are going to go for it until the inevitable domestic attack.

Such a shame but I think you're right.

[AKCJ]

This debate is already descending into farce.

 

It was always going to really, wasn't it?

[Bettsj2]

That was pretty brutal wasn't it?! "I wish I had the self-righteousness of our finger-jabbing colleagues who promote newer, kinder politics, who no doubt I'll be getting a few calls off tonight"

You do wonder just how bad this is behind the scenes.

Its not even behind the scenes though. The dissent is there for all to see.

I'm glad there isnt too much political point scoring going on in this debate but lets be honest, Cameron and thhe Tory's dont have to do a single thing to attack the Labour party at the minute.

They're imploding before our very eyes. Very sad to see.

[Guest MattP]

It was always going to really, wasn't it?

 

I think so, it's such a shame that two hours of buffoonery and political point scoring went out to the nation live on Sky News and the BBC whilst in the last hour some fantastic speeches from all sides have only been shown on the BBC Parliament channel.

[Bettsj2]

I think so, it's such a shame that two hours of buffoonery and political point scoring went out to the nation live on Sky News and the BBC whilst in the last hour some fantastic speeches from all sides have only been shown on the BBC Parliament channel.

This

[Alf Bentley]

Stretching it a bit calling Saudi capitalist.

 

I was being flippant - though the Saudis do like to accumulate a lot of capital from selling oil and don't tend to socialistically distribute much of it to their poorer citizens.

 

 

As for the vote, yet again we seem to be rushing into something that hasn't been properly thought through - as with Iraq and Libya.

 

I'm not against air strikes against Islamic State. If their armed forces, control centres and supply lines can be hit without major risk to civilians, fair enough. But it never ends up like that, does it?

In Raqqa it sounds as if they're well integrated into civilian society and even dug into underground tunnels. Interesting read here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-fortifies-raqqa-as-it-braces-for-an-international-assault-on-its-syrian-stronghold-a6744916.html

 

It does sound as if ground troops will be needed - and not Western ground troops, as that would fuel Islamist extremism in the West and create a costly quagmire. However, it seems that it is being left to chance as to what ground troops, if any, show up. Assuming air strikes cause major damage to ISIS, very little seems to have been thought through about what happens next. For a start, the Russians are presumably still bombing other rebel groups, so the single group most likely to be boosted by all this is Assad's lot.....not necessarily a good thing to have them running rampant over the country.

 

Air strikes may be part of the solution, but there needs to be a proper strategy for what comes next if Islamic State are badly damaged militarily. Who will fill the vacuum and on what terms?

 

I do hope that there are also serious efforts to deal with IS funding, both from rich citizens in the Middle East and from oil sales.

 

There will probably have to be a settlement negotiated by parties on the ground eventually. That will probably have to include Assad, at least in the medium-term, because of Russian strategic interests, but involve some sort of devolution or division of power as whole swathes of the country presumably wouldn't accept his rule. Given Islamic State's contempt for peace, democracy, compromise, even human life, and potential for spreading terrorism, it will presumably have to be defeated or disarmed and disbanded. All the more reason why the political solution needs to be led by Syrians and others from the region so as to avoid the potential for Islamist manipulators to persuade hotheaded Muslim youths in the West that this is all an anti-Muslim crusade.

 

From all the Western leaders, there does seem to be a focus on "doing what is expected" (by the electorate or by allies), not on doing what will yield a stable, peaceful solution. The West, indeed the whole world needs to have a proper plan or there could be all sorts of disastrous consequences. It might be very satisfying for Hollande, Cameron & co to bomb IS - and richly deserved for such a vile sect - but allowing Syria, like Libya, to descend into long-term mayhem on Europe's doorstep is a massive risk. 

[Buce]

Fair points and long with the mythical 70,000 rebel fighters Cameron is claiming to be able turn I think we have enough doubt this time to say No to the airstrikes, I think Cameron has made a pretty poor case for joining a war we probably should be involved in in some way alongside a grand coalition.

But why are so many people seemingly determined to do nothing? That's what I don't understand, it's a common opinion now to want to just turn the other cheek, what kind of a country have we become when we turn a blind eye to a group of people who behead children because they are the wrong religion? I think the vast majority of rational people believe something has to be done about ISIS, just wandering around with a placard saying "bread not bombs" isn't going to defeat them or make us safer.

P.S Why was there no uproar like this when we decided on air strikes on Iraq? I do find it strange we are treating Syria so different.

There is a difference, Matt.

Bombing IS in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government; Assad has issued no such request.

[fuchsntf]

In this debate, I am neither Socialist or conservative.

I dislike how some, not all media or press have made this into a political party debate, in that one descision one way, or the other shows for what political party you sympathise with.

Thats why I didnt like what Cameron indicated on terrorist sympathisers, if Any other leader had dropped it in, I would

be disgusted just the same.That statement intervened and split the way and path this debate would be actioned.

It if you like softened the first speaches not being allowed to concentrate on the major or real issue, it turned the 1st

discussions into a farce, not allowing the listeners to qualify the opinions being discussed

[Guest MattP]

Magnificent speech by Dan Jarvis, he really is something.

[ramboacdc]

can someone please tell me why we are looking at bombing them when it has done a great lot of ****all in recent times? seems like all we are doing is spending a lot of money to look more busy than we actually are. like someone who makes it look like they are sweeping up without sweeping. 

[Lionator]

Magnificent speech by Dan Jarvis, he really is something.

 

I read his piece on the news statesman yesterday and it's probably the only piece that has convinced me that this bombing campaign has to be done. In fact, he's one of the only people who could get Labour back in any sort of power. 

[MPH]

can someone please tell me why we are looking at bombing them when it has done a great lot of ****all in recent times? seems like all we are doing is spending a lot of money to look more busy than we actually are. like someone who makes it look like they are sweeping up without sweeping. 

 

 

 

Bombs are about to go past their 'use by' date. Pilots not had any decent training for a few years. Got to keep them battle-ready