Support NeoGAF

[Jezbollah]

Labour voters overwhelmingly want *Labour* MPs; the sooner we can be rid of the Tories that have infected the party the better... Corbyn just needs to hold out until grassroots can start the cull.

It'll be interesting given Oldham happens today as to an indicator either way..

I don't know if he said that or not, but in fairness Russia's bombing strategy is very different to ours. They have completely different geo-political objectives.

In a nutshell, really (easy to see what they are with the previous map posted).

Looks like strikes have already been flown against Syria by the RAF.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I think I read it was 11 Tories that voted against.

Well it's done now. History will tell if this was the right decision. Chilcot part II due 2027

Isn't that the expected date for Chilcot I?

 

[Protome]

As expected, every SNP voted against. Yet again pointing out the difference in political views between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

That said, the majority of Labour voting against is at least a positive sign.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Counting down the days until Carswell rejoins the Conservatives. Those two hate each other. Incredible party, old UKIP.

Proud my MP voted against this Syrian mistake.

I've been checking theyworkforyou.com but this vote hasn't appeared on my MPs record yet. Is there another list somewhere? Or how long after a vote does it usually take to update?

Edit:

I don't know if he said that or not, but in fairness Russia's bombing strategy is very different to ours. They have completely different geo-political objectives.

I vaguely remember a press conference with a Russian bigwig where a reporter asked what defintion of terrorist they were using when they said they were going to "bomb terrorists in Syria". The Russian replied along the lines of "if it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist..."

 

[Xun]

It's a shame we'll never know how Hilary's dad would've reacted to his speech.

 

[RedShift]

As expected, every SNP voted against. Yet again pointing out the difference in political views between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

That said, the majority of Labour voting against is at least a positive sign.

I'm getting increasingly jealous of Scots for having the SNP to vote for tbh. They aren't exactly perfect but they seem a lot better than anyone we have to vote for.

 

[ruttyboy]

I've been checking theyworkforyou.com but this vote hasn't appeared on my MPs record yet. Is there another list somewhere? Or how long after a vote does it usually take to update?

You can check here on the BBC.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You can check here on the BBC.

Ta muchly.

My MP (Bristol West) was unable to attend for some reason. There's been some pretty big protests in the city centre over the past couple of days.

 

[Nicktendo86]

My MP (Jim Fitzpatrick) was one of the 66 Labour MPs to vote for. Interesting considering we have a large Muslim population here.

Some of the nonsense abuse that Benn has got over his speech has been terrible, the nasty side of the left is really coming out. Also seen idiots, including Mhari Black, saying that the house burst into laughter when the result came in. Obviously bullshit, the vote was greeted by total silence on all sides. Bercow laughed at the end when he tried to do or say something to the house and was ignored and everyone left.

Edit: I can't take the stupid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...d-joins-SNP-over-Syrian-air-strikes-vote.html

 

[Uzzy]

You can check here on the BBC.

Real mixed bag for the MPs around here. The Hull lot were split 2-1, with Alan Johnson voting for, and Diana Johnson and Karl Turner voting against. My actual local MP, Graham Stuart, unsurprisingly voted with the government, while David Davis, who's next door, voted against.

 

[twobear]

Edit: I can't take the stupid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...d-joins-SNP-over-Syrian-air-strikes-vote.html

What's stupid about leaving a political party you no longer feel aligns with your views?

 

[JonathanEx]

What's stupid about leaving a political party you no longer feel aligns with your views?

He doesn't live in Scotland, so joining the SNP seems a little pointless.

 

[kmag]

My MP (Jim Fitzpatrick) was one of the 66 Labour MPs to vote for. Interesting considering we have a large Muslim population here.

Some of the nonsense abuse that Benn has got over his speech has been terrible, the nasty side of the left is really coming out. Also seen idiots, including Mhari Black, saying that the house burst into laughter when the result came in. Obviously bullshit, the vote was greeted by total silence on all sides. Bercow laughed at the end when he tried to do or say something to the house and was ignored and everyone left.

Edit: I can't take the stupid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...d-joins-SNP-over-Syrian-air-strikes-vote.html

Mhari Black said the following

Very dark night in parliament.Will never forget the noise of some Labour and Tory cheering together at the idea of bombs falling

Which having watched quite a lot of the debate, they did at various points. Yesterday wasn't one of Parliaments finest moments, and I'm not talking about the vote rather the debate which for a subject as serious as it was, the speeches weren't exactly treated with much respect a lot of catcalling and boobirds on both sides. I mean we had one Tory wag shout out "what's worse?" when his colleague (an ex army officer no less) said "some might call me a pacifist or worse"

 

[Mr. Sam]

Man, that's just dark.

 

[twobear]

He doesn't live in Scotland, so joining the SNP seems a little pointless.

The SNP still sits at Westminster.

[edit] FWIW I was speaking to a friend last night who voted for Yvette Cooper in the leadership elections, and he is absolutely amazed by the poor arguments of the Labour supporters in favour of bombing. He said Yvette Cooper was 'a joke' yesterday.

 

[kmag]

The SNP still sits at Westminster.

[edit] FWIW I was speaking to a friend last night who voted for Yvette Cooper in the leadership elections, and he is absolutely amazed by the poor arguments of the Labour supporters in favour of bombing. He said Yvette Cooper was 'a joke' yesterday.

Coopers position makes a bit more sense when you see the text written down, her presentation made it seem a bit sillier than it probably is, but it's still pretty tortured logic amounting to "even though I think there's no real end game with the current strategy, the US and France are bombing and they asked us to help so we probably should, probably."

We know that no parliament ever takes a more serious decision than what we should do to protect the security and safety of our nation, and whether to put our forces in harms way. I know that every member of the House will be weighing that decision very seriously not least because the truth is we have got those decisions wrong before when we went into Iraq in 2003, and when we failed to intervene in Bosnia early enough a decade before that.

And so since the Prime Minister made his case last Thursday, I have sought for a series of assurances. Some of which I have received, some of which I have not. And I do not believe that the Prime Minister has made the most effective case, and so I understand why many in this House feel that they are not yet convinced. But I also feel that I cannot say that the coalition airstrikes that are underway already – in both in Syria and Iraq - should somehow stop. And if they are not to stop and France has asked for our help I do not think that we can say no.

So I think there are changes that need to be made to the government’s approach and I will argue for them. And I think there are more limits on the approach they need to take, but I will also vote with the Government on this motion tonight, even though I recognise how difficult that is for so many of us.

The whole House I think agrees that we need a strategy that delivers peace and defeats Isil/Daesh, but I disagree with any suggestion that this can be done as Isil first or Daesh first. Because I think that will simply not work. In the end we know that it is the Vienna process, that it is the process which is to replace the Assad regime – which is dropping barrel bombs on so many innocent people across Syria - which is crucial for preventing the recruitment of Isil as well.

And if we or the coalition are to seen to be siding with Assad or strengthening him that will increase recruitment for Daesh as well.

I also disagree with the suggestion that somehow there are 70,000 troops who are going to step in and that the purpose of these air strikes is to provide air cover for these troops to take on and defeat Daesh because we know that’s not going to happen any time soon, we know there aren’t such forces anywhere near Raqqa and these forces are divided.

We know that the airstrikes won’t be part of an imminent decisive military campaign. But I also disagree with those who say that instead of Isil first we should somehow have Vienna first and we should therefore wait until the peace process is completed before we take airstrike action against Daesh.

And that’s why I think the coalition airstrikes are still needed. We know that Isil is not going to be part of the peace process, they won’t negotiate, and they are a death cult that glorifies suicide and slaughter.

And we know too that they have continuous ambitions to expand, and continuous ambitions to attack us, our allies, and to have terror threats not just in Paris, not just in Tunisia, but all over the world and anywhere that they get the chance.

They hold oil, territory, communications that they want to use to expand, and I don’t think that the coalition can simply stand back and give them free reign while we work on that vital peace process.

When coalition airstrikes are already in place involving France, Turkey, Jordan, the US, Morocco, Bahrain, Australia – if we have evidence that there are communication networks that are being used in order to plan attacks in Paris, or Berlin, Brussels or London – can we really say that those coalition airstrikes should not take place to take those communication networks out?

If we have evidence that there are supply routes being used to plan an expansion to take over more territory, to increase their barbaric regime into wider spaces do we really think that coalition airstrikes should not be able to take those supply routes out?

And if we think that the coalition airstrikes should continue can we really say no, when France having gone through the terrible ordeal of Paris say they want our help in continuing those airstrikes now?

I have argued in this place and elsewhere continually for our country to do far more to share in the international support for refugees that are fleeing the conflict. I still think that we should do much more and not leave it to other countries alone. But that same argument about sanctuary also applies to security. And I don’t think we can leave it to other countries to take the strain.

I cannot ignore the advice of security experts that without coalition airstrikes over the next twelve months the threat from Daesh in the region but also in Europe and in Britain will be much greater. And I think we have to do our bit to try and contain that threat, not to promise that we can defeat or overthrow it in the short term because we cannot, but at least to contain what they do.

I also think it’s important to degrade their capacity to obliterate the remaining moderate and opposition forces however big they are because when Vienna does get properly moving there has to be some opposition forces, it cannot simply be a peace debate involving Assad and Daesh as the only forces left standing because that will never bring peace and security to the region.

So if we are to do our bit and to take the strain I think we also need to have more limited objectives than the Prime Minister has set out.

In self-defence, to support the peace process, but not just to create a vacuum for Assad to sweep into.

It makes the imperative of avoiding civilian casualties even greater, because where there is any risk that people are being used as human shields to cover targets however important those targets might be those airstrikes should not go ahead.

It makes the imperative of civilian protection even greater and that’s not mentioned in the government’s motion. It should be the central objective not just for humanitarian reasons to prevent an escalation of the refugee crisis but also to prevent the recruitment that fuels Isil.

And I think time limits are needed too because I don’t support an open ended commitment to airstrikes until Daesh are defeated as I know the Foreign Secretary raised yesterday. Because if it isn’t working in six months or if it proves counterproductive we should be ready to review and we should also be ready to withdraw.

Because we will need to review this and I think tonight we should lend the Government support and keep that under review- not give them an open ended commitment that this should carry on whatever the consequences might be.

And I would say finally to the Government that I have accepted their argument that if we want coalition airstrikes to continue on an international basis we should be part of that, but I would also urge them to accept my argument that we should be doing more to be part of supporting sanctuary for refugees who are fleeing that conflict too.

There are no easy answers here, but I would say in the interests of cohesion in our politics and our country the way we conduct this debate is immensely important. None of us however we vote tonight are terrorist sympathisers, and none of us will have blood on our hands. The blood has been drawn by Isil / Daesh in Paris and across the world and that is who we must stand against.

 

[Uzzy]

There's a great response to Benn's speech from the Spectator's Brendan O'Neill.

Feels accurate. In the heat of the moment, it felt like a barnstorming speech. But comparing ISIS to the Nazis and then calling for nothing but a few airstrikes is very weak.

 

[CyclopsRock]

http://news.sky.com/story/1598994/livingstone-push-out-labour-airstrikes-mps

Labour veteran Ken Livingstone has suggested that Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes should be pushed out of their seats.

Mr Livingstone, who was controversially put in charge of the party's defence review, said if his MP had voted for airstrikes he would back a de-selection challenge.

Speaking on LBC, after 66 Labour MPs defied their leader Jeremy Corbyn to support military action in Syria, he said: "If I had an MP who had voted to bomb Syria then I would be prepared to support someone to challenge him."

Shadow foreign affairs minister Stephen Doughty said Mr Livingstone's comments were "utterly inappropriate" and told Sky News: "I really think Ken needs to consider what he is saying and think very carefully about his position."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith said the comments were "disgraceful".

jeer, hiss

 

[Wrestlemania]

Some of the nonsense abuse that Benn has got over his speech has been terrible, the nasty side of the left is really coming out.

More abuse than the three tweets you were upset about a few days ago?

 

[twobear]

the nasty side of the left is really coming out.

Nastier than calling the people who don't support bombing terrorist sympathisers?

 

[Jackpot]

the nasty side of the left is really coming out

So you keep repeating.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have no idea why the odds on Benn being the next Labour leader have narrowed. He just voted for something that the majority of those intending to vote Labour oppose, and presumably the membership and selectorate are even more against. If anything, I'd say the real news was Dan Jarvis tanking his leadership chances, not Benn improving his. I am highly confident that the next Labour leader will not come from the group of 67.

 

[JesseEwiak]

The only cull that is likely to happen with Corbyn as leader, will be that of Labour MP's at a general election.

Grassroutes maybe trying to push the party left but thats certainly not where the electorate wants them to go. To win an election Labour have to win in places like Basildon, no chance in hell Corbyn gets them anywhere close to taking that seat

Fact remains that in the last 40 years, the furthest left the electorate has voted was Blair. Says alot doesn't it.

An in 2008, the furthest left the American electorate had voted for in 40 years was Bill Clinton. Speaking as an American, the problem from my view is that Labour accepted the blame for a global economic collapse, basically agreed with the Tory prescription and only difference was the dosage of the medicine that the poor and middle class had to take. And yes, polling agreed with all that, but largely because Labour never fought back against that argument.

I don't think Corbyn is the right guy to lead Labour to victory for a variety of reasons, but by the same token, a vast majority of Labour MP's in the center basically seemed to agree with Tory policy for the most part give or take a benefit cut, so why not vote for the Tories at the end of the day if you are a swing voter? Honestly, in order for Labour to win, somebody who has no connection with the Blair-Brown years, but can also make at least a center-left argument well will have to rise to power.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Easy labour hold in Oldham by the sounds of things.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

So the one thing MPs can agree on is War? Nice.

 

[CyclopsRock]

So the one thing MPs can agree on is War? Nice.

Foreign policy is as much a function of a state as eduction and health policy. You don't have to like war to vote for it.

 

[Empty]

corbyn having a good week then. relieves some pressure.

 

[Kurtofan]

So the one thing MPs can agree on is War? Nice.

we haven't changed a bit since last century.

 

[31GhostsIV]

So the one thing MPs can agree on is War? Nice.

Gotta swing those dicks around, plus history shows time and time again that bombing the shit out of misc. targets located in poor countries is an effective countermeasure against terrorism.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Labour's share of the vote in Oldham increased by 7.5%

Holy shit

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

Fantastic result, good speech afterwards too. Media buildup looked very silly after seeing that.

UKIP fume very sad to see. Nuttall lost it on the beeb.

 

[Maledict]

Its interesting hearing the tactics - Labour rolled out a very effective ground machine, focussed heavily on their incredibly popular candidate, and basically didn't mention Corbyn.

I mean, now I've read the background of their candidate I'm not sure why anyone would ever think they could possibly lose that seat. He's the living embodiment of a perfect candidate for that seat, and has massive local recognition.

 

[Spaghetti]

So you keep repeating.

it's quite odd to see the phrase about the "nasty left" coming out regarding some twitter trolls, when the "nasty right" would be a very accurate description of the prime minister and probably half the cabinet.

 

[Real Hero]

Its interesting hearing the tactics - Labour rolled out a very effective ground machine, focussed heavily on their incredibly popular candidate, and basically didn't mention Corbyn.

I mean, now I've read the background of their candidate I'm not sure why anyone would ever think they could possibly lose that seat. He's the living embodiment of a perfect candidate for that seat, and has massive local recognition.

The media narrative was corbyn would ruin all that for him.

 

[Moosichu]

Is Jim McMahon a good person?

 

[Par Score]

Is Jim McMahon a good person?

He supported Liz Kendall in the leadership campaign, but I guess everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Maledict]

He supported Liz Kendall in the leadership campaign, but I guess everyone makes mistakes.

I know some very good, caring labour people who did. The current toxic poison in the party where anyone who considers themselves centre left or a blairite gets labelled as a Tory is really unhealthy and totally inaccurate.

Back to the result, an operative I knew said that usually, 10% of a candidates votes would come from people actually voting for them, the rest for people voting for the party they are in. However, a strong local candidate can push that number a lot higher, which makes them partially immune to the status of their leader or the national party's numbers. Jim was clearly in the latter camp given his role in the borough and story - far more voters will know about him than they would their candidates in other boroughs,

 

[Mr. Luchador]

Fantastic result, good speech afterwards too. Media buildup looked very silly after seeing that.

UKIP fume very sad to see. Nuttall lost it on the beeb.

Man, the two UKIP people I'm aware off sound like off-brand chocolate.

Nuttall and Farage.

 

[Moosichu]

I know some very good, caring labour people who did. The current toxic poison in the party where anyone who considers themselves centre left or a blairite gets labelled as a Tory is really unhealthy and totally inaccurate.

Back to the result, an operative I knew said that usually, 10% of a candidates votes would come from people actually voting for them, the rest for people voting for the party they are in. However, a strong local candidate can push that number a lot higher, which makes them partially immune to the status of their leader or the national party's numbers. Jim was clearly in the latter camp given his role in the borough and story - far more voters will know about him than they would their candidates in other boroughs,

Yeah, Liz Kendal comes across as nice and charismatic. However, Mandelson backed her and I'm ever so wary when people like him get involved.

 

[Maledict]

Yeah, Liz Kendal comes across as nice and charismatic. However, Mandelson backed her and I'm ever so wary when people like him get involved.

I would absolutely agree there. I honestly don't get why Blair and Mandelson are incapable of reading the mood of the party and think their intervention would do anyone any good.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Nastier than calling the people who don't support bombing terrorist sympathisers?

He didn't say that, he was clearly calling Corbyn and his mates terrorist sympathisers and, with their track record, it's easy to see why.

As for last night, great win for Labour. UKIP moaning about the postal votes, personally I would like to have them done away with. Far, far too open to abuse but I don't think there was much abuse yesterday, it was a fair win.

 

[King_Moc]

He didn't say that, he was clearly calling Corbyn and his mates terrorist sympathisers and, with their track record, it's easy to see why.

As for last night, great win for Labour. UKIP moaning about the postal votes, personally I would like to have them done away with. Far, far too open to abuse but I don't think there was much abuse yesterday, it was a fair win.

Not everyone can make it on the day, so what do you suggest?

 

[31GhostsIV]

He didn't say that, he was clearly calling Corbyn and his mates terrorist sympathisers and, with their track record, it's easy to see why.

As for last night, great win for Labour. UKIP moaning about the postal votes, personally I would like to have them done away with. Far, far too open to abuse but I don't think there was much abuse yesterday, it was a fair win.

Well, Cameron was the one ready to sell arms to Saudi Arabia a few months ago before the public caught on. And we all know where Saudi Arabia likes to send arms and funding. That deal would have helped ISIS more than any alleged 'sympathy'.

But no, tell me more about the nasty left and how terrible Corbyn is for being a politician with an actual set of principles.

 

[kitch9]

Not everyone can make it on the day, so what do you suggest?

One time use codes tied to postcodes for web voting. Its how they do the electoral roll already. It is 2015 after all.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

Downloadable app with big shiny buttons. Or maybe a Buzz controller.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Or maybe a Buzz controller.

You're the Prime Minister now.

 

[twobear]

Labour's share of the vote in Oldham increased by 7.5%

Holy shit

The people clearly hate Corbyn.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Tbf the people of Oldham elected Meacher like 12 times. They're obviously loons.

 

[Coriolanus]

Back to the result, an operative I knew said that usually, 10% of a candidates votes would come from people actually voting for them, the rest for people voting for the party they are in. However, a strong local candidate can push that number a lot higher, which makes them partially immune to the status of their leader or the national party's numbers. Jim was clearly in the latter camp given his role in the borough and story - far more voters will know about him than they would their candidates in other boroughs,

This does seem awfully close to a "blame the dude if it fails, deny that he's part of the reason why it went ok if it suceeds" scenario.

 

[Maledict]

This does seem awfully close to a "blame the dude if it fails, deny that he's part of the reason why it went ok if it suceeds" scenario.

When I say "strong local candidate", I don't necessarily mean a good candidate . It's about name recognition and visibility locally. Most people just vote for a party, not a particular MP - but someone who is known locally can get people to vote for them rather than just the party. There#'s numerous MPs like that - Kate Hoey is another, who is loathed by the labour party but gets a lot of voters purely on her name and reputation rather than the fact she's labour.

A good local candidate can overcome the usual "I'm voting for a party and XXX to be prime minister" that motivates most voters in the polling booth.