Don't worry you can't vote SNP in a flit of madness anyway handy thing living in England
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
I find that quite deeply disingenuous actually. He knew what the consequences of encouraging the activists to go and directly place pressure on the MPs would be but he went ahead and did it anyway without even slightly trying to guard against this. It's not the first attempt he's tried to use the party members and activists to try and intimidate the MPs into falling in line either.
And Tigs is right. No amount of whatabouttery can disguise the fact he's got the political skills of a woodlouse. Adult in charge of the Labour party? If only.
Don't worry you can't vote SNP in a flit of madness anyway handy thing living in England
Thats true, you only get to vote if you live there as appose to being born there and moving away when you were still very young.....
This is opposed to using the party whip or the fact MP's refused to fall in line when asked them to as he should as a leader? Not condoning actions but Corbyn only real power-base in the Labour party are the activists who voted him there in the first place he needs to use them to convince MP's that it's what they want and no amount of dummy spitting will change that. Can't really blame him for trying to use the only card he has popular support. Should he have guarded against it? Probably but a it least he's condemned it unlike a certain PM who branded every person opposed to this action (that has now be voted for by the way) a terrorist sympathiser.
It's frustrating when you've been following the arguments all day that the only person to really make the governments case in my eyes apart from saying yey or ney is the bloody shadow foreign secretary.
67 Labour MP's went against Crobyn.
Find the arguments about uk putting a target on its back now tedious I mean we already have a target on our back FFS or are people genuinely that ignorant.
Find the arguments about uk putting a target on its back now tedious I mean we already have a target on our back FFS or are people genuinely that ignorant.
Last edited:
So we are sending 6 warplanes to bomb an already saturated part of Syria, total window dressing. Why dont we just let the Russians get on with it and put Assad back in place and everything will go back to what it was before this stupid "arab spring".
It's a dirty world but that doesn't make Corbyn any less dirty for going there - and I don't count making sympathetic noises after a situation he instigated occurs as condemning. That's arse covering.
I also think that, yes, using the whip would have exposed MPs to less fire from activists, while also having more effect on MPs, and maybe even preventing this wretched mess. He had mishandled this disastrously; he's got nothing of what he wanted and has alienated most of the Parliamentary Labour Party as a result. He's also exposed that he simply doesn't have the guts to say "I'm in charge, this is how it's happening, if you don't like it, bye."
It's a textbook example of how not to do it.
The thing with this vote is that I could understand (but not agree) with them claiming they wanted to bomb to eradicate ISIS, or bring peace to Syria, or whatever.
But the main tagline that the pig shaggers are pumping out is that they're doing this to "keep Britain safe".
It will do the exact bloody opposite.
But the main tagline that the pig shaggers are pumping out is that they're doing this to "keep Britain safe".
It will do the exact bloody opposite.
How?
I don't buy that it will do the opposite. IMO it won't make any difference.
I don't agree with the air drops though mainly because it just isn't an effective way to stop it.
In support of a genuine army, it can do wonders. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be one.
I find myself in the weird position of disagreeing strongly with both sides of the argument.
Yep It should be Air support not Air drops.
Agree with you about disagreeing with both sides.
Realistically I think the same.
Apparently the coalition are already struggling to find legitimate targets, it's not like they're short of man power. All this means is that the USA/France/whoever else will be spending less on bombs, and we'll be covering part of it.
In theory, though, there could be backlash. The Paris attacks were (again, in theory) a reaction to France bombing Syria.
Then again Britain isn't exactly top of the ISIS Christmas card list to start with, so I doubt this'll spark anything.
It's a money thing, really - how much debt are we in, and how much are we now throwing away on bombs that the USA would just be covering anyway?
Each missile costs 10s? 100s? of thousands of pounds as it is, and we'll be making no difference.
This is just a willy waggle, saying "We're standing against ISIS", when we're already bombing them in Iraq so it's not like we're just ignoring them.
Which is why Russia are supporting the Syrian army, any solution lies with them.
Can someone tell me what the Un is doing? Surely they should take some responsibility in the matter considering this is a global threat? Are UN forces getting involved?
UN forces? there is no such thing. Any UN mission is supported by a number of nations but no one is going to commit forces to a UN mission on the ground in Syria given how weak UN RoE are.
Last edited:
Not much. Most recent Security Council resolution here - http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2249(2015) - doesn't quite encourage action in Syria and doesn't quite forbid it here either. Just enough of a fig leaf for everyone who wants to to get involved and just enough of a fig leaf that Putin can claim only those there at Assad's invite should be in Syria.
Meanwhile, Yemen continues to get brutalised and no one cares.
The Hilary Benn fan club!
if looks could kill!
- Status
Similar threads
