[Archived] The General Election 2015

[Jimmy612]

Just a point.. Anybody know why a collection of thoroughly unpleasant, backward and dangerous individuals who are totally incapable of independent thought have been named after Burnley's manager?

[yoda]

Are you referring to the yougov poll? 48% in favour, but only 31% against. It would be dishonest to count the "don't knows" as being opposed to either view

There is a problem on this MB with "representative" polls

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

It was a mistake by Cameron to label in a group that people against air strikes are terrorist sympathisers, but I have no doubt in my mind that there are terrorist sympathisers among them and one of them is the leader of the Labour party. You only have to look at his track record with the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah.

I see the Corbynista led momentum group have been intimidating MP's that don't share the same viewpoint as their leader. Liz Kendall in particular getting a lot of abuse on social media and a group gathered outside Stella Creasey's house this morning facing intimdation and threats of de-selection. Corbyn's response? People should be treated with respect, not stop doing this immediately. The new politics how nice.

I'm in favor of air strikes, I believe that ISIL and their ilk should be wiped off the face of the earth. With a UN mandate and a broad coalition of support I feel that we should be a part of this movement to end ISIL, the UK is already at the high est level of risk and I don't see how air strikes are going to make us less safe. But I do accept that air strikes alone won't eradicate them, air strikes are more of a contain and wear down strategy and to fully defeat them there needs to be boots on the ground. Unless we see another 9/11 level of event it won't be western troops involved so if we want to destroy them we do need to get some of the regional powers in the area to provide the ground forces.

Your last paragraph is nonsensical, as is Cameron's position. You know, he knows and I know that without a coherent ground force further bombing is futile. There are no coherent ground forces that we have any influence with at the moment. No Western country is prepared to put in significant numbers of troops.Yet you and he still want to bomb something, anything.

Cameron has behaved disgracefully over this issue and his failure to apologise to the house has compounded his shame.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Your last paragraph is nonsensical, as is Cameron's position. You know, he knows and I know that without a coherent ground force further bombing is futile. There are no coherent ground forces that we have any influence with at the moment. No Western country is prepared to put in significant numbers of troops.Yet you and he still want to bomb something, anything.

Cameron has behaved disgracefully over this issue and his failure to apologise to the house has compounded his shame.

Giving up after this, your posts on the issue seem to be veering further from logical discussion and more towards pathetically biased assumptions and bitter party politics by the day. It worked blocking jim and tj, think its good for me.

A few facts about IS before I never debate this with you again:

Ethnic cleansing on an historic scale - Amnesty International

Over 60 countries currently directly or indirectly waging war against them.

Even Al-Qaeda disowned them due to "notorious intransigence" (failure to compromise).

Before America initiated military combat with them, they had the Iraqi government on the brink of total collapse.

It has made refugees of 830,000 people.

They send children to their military training camps at the age of 6.

They instruct their soldiers they are allowed to rape, enslave or sell non-Muslim women.

They've used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

They routinely destroy cultural/heritage sites of anything that pre-dates Islam.

In 2014 they attacked moderate rebels in Syria 5 times as often as they did Assad's regime.

They have carried out 424 suicide bombings, killing 4,949 people with them.

The UK population has the 10th highest number of tweets supporting IS in the world.

They have 600 British fighters.

I put those last 2 in to demonstrate how unviable it is for our country to simply ignore them, their supporters are on our doorstep, in our society. And the stronger IS get, the bolder they'll get. The UK is in extreme peril of a Paris-style attack, almost to the point that its inevitable sooner or later. I wonder if a few views might change when it happens. I don't agree with Cameron saying terrorist sympathisers, but I'd certainly say there is a hell of a lot of moral cowardice about.

[Gav]

Giving up after this, your posts on the issue seem to be veering further from logical discussion and more towards pathetically biased assumptions and bitter party politics by the day. It worked blocking jim and tj, think its good for me.

A few facts about IS before I never debate this with you again:

Ethnic cleansing on an historic scale - Amnesty International

Over 60 countries currently directly or indirectly waging war against them.

Even Al-Qaeda disowned them due to "notorious intransigence" (failure to compromise).

Before America initiated military combat with them, they had the Iraqi government on the brink of total collapse.

It has made refugees of 830,000 people.

They send children to their military training camps at the age of 6.

They instruct their soldiers they are allowed to rape, enslave or sell non-Muslim women.

They've used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

They routinely destroy cultural/heritage sites of anything that pre-dates Islam.

In 2014 they attacked moderate rebels in Syria 5 times as often as they did Assad's regime.

They have carried out 424 suicide bombings, killing 4,949 people with them.

The UK population has the 10th highest number of tweets supporting IS in the world.

They have 600 British fighters.

I put those last 2 in to demonstrate how unviable it is for our country to simply ignore them, their supporters are on our doorstep, in our society. And the stronger IS get, the bolder they'll get. The UK is in extreme peril of a Paris-style attack, almost to the point that its inevitable sooner or later. I wonder if a few views might change when it happens. I don't agree with Cameron saying terrorist sympathisers, but I'd certainly say there is a hell of a lot of moral cowardice about.

You do remember the Iraq war, Kuwait, Bush and Blair, weapons of mass distruction, no exit strategy, ISIL, radicalism, Paris, Belgium, Nigeria......

Calling someone's posts 'pathetic biased assumptions' is missing the point by a country mile.

You sound like Cameron!

I may agree with much of what you say, but to just dismiss the opposite view is learning nothing from recent history and thats very dangerous indeed.

[yoda]

Hilary Benn just about nailed it tonight, Corbyn's pathetic attempt to stop him sitting down was laughable.

Labour would be united and invigorated with him as their leader

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Well it looks like once again many MP's have misjudged the mood of the nation. Let's hope they don't live to regret it.

Steve I can't be bothered answering your long list of facts that actually ignore the main issue - UK ground forces in Syria. This will happen without much of a doubt.

Hilary Benn just about nailed it tonight, Corbyn's pathetic attempt to stop him sitting down was laughable.

Labour would be united and invigorated with him as their leader

Not for me, his dad will be spinning in his grave.

[yoda]

Well it looks like once again many MP's have misjudged the mood of the nation. Let's hope they don't live to regret it.

Steve I can't be bothered answering your long list of facts that actually ignore the main issue - UK ground forces in Syria. This will happen without much of a doubt.

Not for me, his dad will be spinning in his grave.

I would have thought the main issue is stopping IS bombing and killing on our streets, or have I missed something ?

Well it looks like once again many MP's have misjudged the mood of the nation. Let's hope they don't live to regret it.

Steve I can't be bothered answering your long list of facts that actually ignore the main issue - UK ground forces in Syria. This will happen without much of a doubt.

Not for me, his dad will be spinning in his grave.

You are making a big assumption on what someone who is no longer with us would do

[ABBEY]

so theres no brew club then.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I would have thought the main issue is stopping IS bombing and killing on our streets, or have I missed something ?

You are making a big assumption on what someone who is no longer with us would do

Nobody.s arguing that we need to defend ourselves. The argument has been which is the best way of going about it.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Calling someone's posts 'pathetic biased assumptions' is missing the point by a country mile.

You sound like Cameron!

I suggest you read his post before comparing me to Cameron for criticising it:

"Yet you and he still want to bomb something, anything."

Those in favour of attacking arguably the most evil military force ever darkened by humanity equates to us just wanting to bomb anything does it?

That is a pathetic accusation, and that's what I was referring to.

Interesting that yourself and others go ballistic when people on one side of the argument overstep the line and are wilfully ignorant when people on your own side do. Actually its not interesting, it happens constantly so has now become depressing predictable. I'm still waiting for you all to demand an apology from Stop the War for their tweet labelling westerners as extremists and blaming them for the Paris attacks. Did you at any point demand an apology from them for that? Did Tyrone? No of course not, if it ain't the Tories it ain't a problem. Hence the biased part of my comment.

[K-Hod]

Everyone is biased though, politics gets as tribal as football at times!

What stop the war tweeted then hastily removed was wrong, (as they seem to be in general, but I don't know much of them, other than they obviously want to stop wars) but I'm not sure why you assume people support them because they are left-leaning, indeed, you are the only poster on this board I can recall ever mentioning them.

People only seem to be able to consider one extreme or the other. I.E. if you don't agree with bombing and would rather a different solution you're a 'terrorist sympathiser' 'leftie' 'hippy' etc.

Or, from the other side 'you just want to bomb everything' etc etc. To paraphrase, they're both also 'depressingly predictable'.

Whilst I think bombing is one solution, I don't think it will completely get rid of ISIS, other terrorist groups exist as well which will end up being a threat if they disappeared, I've absolutely no doubt about that.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Lumping all left groups in one package is puerile. I can't be held responsible for every statement made by people I've never even heard of. I'll stand by what I say personally. It's ironic that Hilary Benn can make powerful speeches in support of a Tory government who's leader has just called opponents of the bombing " terrorist sympathisers " . Would his Dad behaved like that ? I doubt that very much. Cameron has been itching to get involved in this for a long while, he's never got over the last knock back they had a year or two back. Let's see how it pans out now.

[Rover-the-Top]

Well it looks like once again many MP's have misjudged the mood of the nation. Let's hope they don't live to regret it.

How do you conclude they've misread the mood of the nation? Opinion polls consistently showed more support for bombing than there was opposing it. Personally I'd be a "don't know", not because I have any hesitation about tackling IS, but because I can't make an informed decision on the best way to do so. But one of the reasons why we have MPs is to make these decisions. And in this case, the government thinks it's the right thing to do, the lib dems think it's the right thing to do, 60+ labour MPs think it's the right thing to do, including the shadow foreign secretary, shadow defence secretary and deputy leader of the opposition.

Comparisons to Blair and Iraq are childish, the U.K. has justifiably used military action on many more occasions. I never believed Iraq posed a genuine threat - the UN reported that they had no WMDs, and I couldn't see sense in attacking and provoking a retaliation if they had. But this situation is different. IS are already a threat, taking the lives of British citizens. That nullifies fears over a reaction, they will still target us even if we do nothing. And we are doing this with international support.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Everyone is biased though, politics gets as tribal as football at times!

What stop the war tweeted then hastily removed was wrong, (as they seem to be in general, but I don't know much of them, other than they obviously want to stop wars) but I'm not sure why you assume people support them because they are left-leaning, indeed, you are the only poster on this board I can recall ever mentioning them.

People only seem to be able to consider one extreme or the other. I.E. if you don't agree with bombing and would rather a different solution you're a 'terrorist sympathiser' 'leftie' 'hippy' etc.

Or, from the other side 'you just want to bomb everything' etc etc. To paraphrase, they're both also 'depressingly predictable'.

Whilst I think bombing is one solution, I don't think it will completely get rid of ISIS, other terrorist groups exist as well which will end up being a threat if they disappeared, I've absolutely no doubt about that.

I assume people support Stop the War because the Labour leader is a member, they have 1.5 million likes (1.5 million!) on Facebook and have organised 2 mass marches in the space of 4 days in an attempt to influence the Syria debate. Maybe you don't know anything about them but there are plenty of people who clearly do and they are a big driving force behind the anti-bombing side of the argument. If the pro side is expected to apologise on behalf of Cameron (as many on here did), then equally the anti side should apologise on behalf of Corbyn for him being a member of a group that there is clear evidence contain terrorist sympathisers in its upper ranks.

Agree with your last statement. But then I don't think it will get rid of IS at all, it will simply stop them taking control of Iraq and Syria and using those countries as a base for further expansion and increased attacks on the West. And those countries would have been taken by now but for the bombing campaign, a fact some of the anti-bombing side seem to continually ignore.

[Gav]

I suggest you read his post before comparing me to Cameron for criticising it:

"Yet you and he still want to bomb something, anything."

Those in favour of attacking arguably the most evil military force ever darkened by humanity equates to us just wanting to bomb anything does it?

That is a pathetic accusation, and that's what I was referring to.

Interesting that yourself and others go ballistic when people on one side of the argument overstep the line and are wilfully ignorant when people on your own side do. Actually its not interesting, it happens constantly so has now become depressing predictable. I'm still waiting for you all to demand an apology from Stop the War for their tweet labelling westerners as extremists and blaming them for the Paris attacks. Did you at any point demand an apology from them for that? Did Tyrone? No of course not, if it ain't the Tories it ain't a problem. Hence the biased part of my comment.

I read you post, several times, I agreed with it I some cases also SKHT?

Comparing you to Cameron was a joke on the back his stupid remark about 'Terrorist sympathisers'

I don't really have a side by the way, I certainly don't support Corbyns anti-war stance, anti-shoot to kill rubbish.

But learning lessons from previous debacles cannot simply be dismissed as you seemed to be doing in my opinion, that's all I was saying really.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/02/airstrike-backing-labour-mps-receive-threats-and-deselection-warnings

Not so much the de-selection warnings as I suspect any party could be guilty of that. But another warning about the increasingly intolerant and un-democratic nature of the extreme left in this country.

Thankfully condemned by Corbyn and a number of other Labour MPs.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I don't suppose the Tories that abstained or voted no to bombing were exactly flavour of the month last night either. You take decisions, you suffer the consequences. Just like anybody else in any other walk of life.

There was more to this than just the bombing. The Tories saw this as a great chance to drive a massive wedge right down the middle of the Labour Party. The Blairites leapt at the chance to give Corbyn and the left a black eye and played right into the Tories hands. They'll have to take the consequences now. No good running home crying to mummy, this isn't a game, it's serious.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Also, why on earth did Hilary Benn not run for Labour leader? Phenomenal speech. Gravitas, logic, knowledgeable, courageous and balance (maybe that last one is why he didn't run with all the cranks in the Labour membership at present).

No surprise its going down like a lead balloon amongst the hard left. Corbyn looked like he'd accidentally ingested a colony of ants and I'm surprised Chairman McDonnell didn't hit him over the head with his little red book.

[den]

Are you referring to the yougov poll? 48% in favour, but only 31% against. It would be dishonest to count the "don't knows" as being opposed to either view

It might have been that one, not sure. I did get that wrong, there wasn't a majority against bombing as I said, but there wasn't a majority in favour either - which is what I meant.

Sometimes you have to listen to what I said and work out what I actually meant. Is that too much to ask? Buck up.

Well it's happened now, there's nothing we can do about it - even if we wanted to. I do wonder about democracy though. Generally speaking, MP,s take very little notice of what their constituents think, evidenced by the way they have seen fit to back their leaders. There's no way the MP's constituents views are reflected. Does anyone believe that 95+% of tories back air strikes? and no way does the Labour vote reflects the views of their supporters. I'm not suggesting for one minute that the public should decide these issues, but surely the MP's should give some kind of consideration to what the general public believes.

[Rover-the-Top]

It might have been that one, not sure. I did get that wrong, there wasn't a majority against bombing as I said, but there wasn't a majority in favour either - which is what I meant.

Sometimes you have to listen to what I said and work out what I actually meant. Is that too much to ask? Buck up.

Well it's happened now, there's nothing we can do about it - even if we wanted to. I do wonder about democracy though. Generally speaking, MP,s take very little notice of what their constituents think, evidenced by the way they have seen fit to back their leaders. There's no way the MP's constituents views are reflected. Does anyone believe that 95+% of tories back air strikes? and no way does the Labour vote reflects the views of their supporters. I'm not suggesting for one minute that the public should decide these issues, but surely the MP's should give some kind of consideration to what the general public believes.

As far as I'm aware, the poll I mentioned was the first and only not to show a majority in favour of bombing.

The problem with listening to the public is that the popular choice isn't always the right one. I'm sure a strong majority of the country would be in favour of free ice cream for everyone, it doesn't mean it would sensible to do it. Taking the poll above, you've got more in favour of bombing than against it, but no clear majority. So who should the MPs listen to? I'd suggest they should do what they have done, research the subject, listen to the arguments, and vote from an informed point of view that few in the public get to have. They can still be wrong of course. But with opinion split, they'll still be representing some of the people however they vote.

[den]

So who should the MPs listen to? I'd suggest they should do what they have done, research the subject, listen to the arguments, and vote from an informed point of view that few in the public get to have. They can still be wrong of course. But with opinion split, they'll still be representing some of the people however they vote.

If the MP's had listened to the arguments and voted from an informed point of view, the two parties wouldn't have been so far apart. The tories voted along party lines, while Labour had a free vote but consulted no one. That's my point.

I guess if one party was closer to public opinion, it was the Labour Party.

[Rover-the-Top]

In so much as they couldn't agree with each other?

[den]

In reflecting the public point of view. The tories voted 95%? in favour of air strikes, but that point of view isn't reflected anywhere else. I'm not trying to make a political point here, I'm just wondering whether it's right that MP's should vote either.....

100% behind their leader,

By their own personal opinion or....

By trying to reflect their constituents opinions?

Just as a matter of debate, that's all.

[Paul]

Excellent point den. Never thought of it that way before