Hesther Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Perhaps you should keep up to date. The Tories will have a free vote on the issue just like they did last time. I'm not sure where you have got this information from. At the time of writing my OP, I certainly did not have such information and my search today has revealed nothing that confirms this. ---------- Post added 30-11-2015 at 20:12 ---------- If the Government had whipped the vote to bomb Assad in 2013 we might not have the mess in Syria with IS that we have now. There's some food for thought. If the Government had whipped the vote to bomb Asssad, he probably still wouldn't have got his will to bomb Syria and furthermore if he had been successful in his rush to wade in blindly last time, he'd have been bombing the opposite side he wants to bomb now for over a year! There's some food for thought! Edited December 1, 2015 by Hesther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Think about your reply to me a bit harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 why do you think that? Because he has openly said he is making sure that he won't be (embarrassingly) defeated again this time. He also featured on SkyNews this morning, saying bombing Syria was the 'right' thing to do. As if he has some moral authority - the same person who has stolen from the poor to give to the rich. and while corbyn has done the sensible and right thing, it's a shame that he's only done so after being forced to do so after a week and a half of pointless bickering and by the threat of the shadow cabinet resigning en-masse. for a politician of many years standing, he really is bad at politics. He hasn't really been forced to do anything. As seems to be becoming a pattern with Corbyn, he took time to consider the matter, rather than rush in, and if that means he is bad at politics, then I for one, am glad he is. I'd rather have someone who is really bad at politics but good at being a considered, compassionate human being for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I'd rather have someone who is really bad at politics but good at being a considered, compassionate human being for a change. Compasson for ISIS fighters is a strange sort of compassion. Most compassionate people are thinking about the hundreds of thousands of people that IS has already killed, maimed, tortured, raped and persecuted and the millions that are still looking forward to that horrible fate. It seems like the only person that Jeremy really cares about is himself and his ability to get some sleep by not making the difficult decisions he's ben elected to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 Compasson for ISIS fighters is a strange sort of compassion. Most compassionate people are thinking about the hundreds of thousands of people that IS has already killed, maimed, tortured, raped and persecuted and the hundreds of thousands that are still looking forward to that horrible fate. It seems like the only person that Jeremy really cares about is himself and his ability to get some sleep by not making the difficult decisions he's ben elected to make. Strawman alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Strawman alert. You don't know what a strawman is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) I think Corbyn has done the sensible thing and the right thing, in giving Labour MPs the opportunity to vote according to their conscience on this highly important matter. I wonder if Cameron dare do the same. His actions lead me to believe that he would not. I suspect he will, because he has already stated he will only hold a vote if he is confidant the house will pass it. If he is confidant, there is no need to whip. ---------- Post added 01-12-2015 at 09:28 ---------- Not a chance. Cameron sees himself as some kind of elder statesman which he is not. And he's arrogant. It's quite embarrassing to watch him trying to shove himself forward in Europe when they just want him to go away. This is his chance to grab their attention and play with the big boys for once. Sad really.... What is sad is how petty and childish the opposition fanboys are. You can only snipe from the sidelines. Exactly how many commons votes did Blair call when he took the UK to 2 illegal wars? The is a unanimous UN mandate and Cameron is trying to gain cross party support. Corbyn has U turned as only last week Labour was saying the decision on support for such action was with the leader and not the party. Now he has offered a free vote only hours after the likes of Diane Abbot refuted there would be on. Labour are in chaos. Edited December 1, 2015 by Berberis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I'm not sure where you have got this information from. At the time of writing my OP, I certainly did not have such information and my search today has revealed nothing that confirms this. ---------- Post added 30-11-2015 at 20:12 ---------- If the Government had whipped the vote to bomb Asssad, he probably still wouldn't have got his will to bomb Syria and furthermore if he had been successful in his rush to wade in blindly last time, he'd have been bombing the opposite side he wants to bomb now for over a year! There's some food for thought! I thought last time Cameron's will was to help stop Assad using chemical weapons against his own citizens rather than bomb Syria ? Didn't Putin persuade Assad to get rid of Syria's chemicals weapons as a consequence of western countries threat to bomb Assad ? I don't think Cameron waded in blindly last time , but remember some controversy about the Labour leader at the time reneging on a deal . Food for thought is you are comparing apples with oranges . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyA Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I think Corbyn has done the sensible thing and the right thing, in giving Labour MPs the opportunity to vote according to their conscience on this highly important matter. I wonder if Cameron dare do the same. His actions lead me to believe that he would not. Corbyn doing the right and sensible thing! he simply had no choice else he would have been out of a job come next week. As for Cameron doing the same I thought that the Tories were having a free vote anyway, no need for a whip as it should go through fairly easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 I suspect he will, because he has already stated he will only hold a vote if he is confidant the house will pass it. If he is confidant, there is no need to whip. I hope he does. Unfortunately, in the future, I think it will be important to see how our MPs voted on this, and if they are voting without a whip they will not have that excuse for making the wrong decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now