UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[The Marquis de Leech]

 

I think Labour's problem is that while there's enthusiasm for Corbyn's brand of politics among a third or so of the voters in England Wales (which is where the outcome will be determined) there's real hostility towards him among another 55% or so. And, the enthusiasm is concentrated in places that Labour already holds, while the hostility prevails in marginal seats.

Really?

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-29/marginal-seat-voters-react-to-jeremy-corbyns-labour-conference-speech/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-win-marginal-ward-on-tory-controlled-cherwell-district-council-a6676766.html

(This is not to say that Labour would win in 2020 - it's way too early to make predictions - but this idea that Corbyn is simply part of an Arthur Scargill Fan-Club Circle-Jerk and that the marginals can only be won with the likes of Liz Kendall seems to have little foundation).

[Hereward]

Really? You're counter argument to the statement that Corbyn is only popular amongst a small and dedicated proportion of the electorate is a bye-election with 20% turn-out and a handful of voters asked about a couple of policies? Tory policies in 2001 were popular until people a) found out they were Tory policies and b ) contemplated the idea of William Hague as Prime Minister. Same thing with Miliband.  

[Hereward]

Whatever one's views on the substantive issue, or on Corbyn as a leader, I think it's pretty sad that the hill on which his opponents have chosen to make a stand is for the right to drop bombs on people.

Or alternatively the hill they've chosen to make a stand on is the principle of standing with your Allies against a bunch of medievalist barbarians who have actively attacked both them and this country. 

[Maltaran]

In non-Corbyn news, the abortion laws in Northern Ireland breach human rights
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34963159

[mormont]

Or alternatively the hill they've chosen to make a stand on is the principle of standing with your Allies against a bunch of medievalist barbarians who have actively attacked both them and this country. 

No. That principle is not in question. Corbyn subscribes to it, as do I. The actions that should rightly follow on from that principle are very much in question, though.

To suggest that this is actually the issue, is to suggest that there is no possible decision or debate or dissent about methods or consequences, which would be pretty unreasonable. It would in fact be the sort of 'with us or against us' reasoning that's deployed to stampede people into the lobbies or otherwise shut up and do what they're told, for fear of being called unpatriotic or worse. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Really? You're counter argument to the statement that Corbyn is only popular amongst a small and dedicated proportion of the electorate is a bye-election with 20% turn-out and a handful of voters asked about a couple of policies? Tory policies in 2001 were popular until people a) found out they were Tory policies and b ) contemplated the idea of William Hague as Prime Minister. Same thing with Miliband.  

Well, we're not exactly swimming in available data on Corbyn's electability.

So far we've got the Blairites screaming that the sky is falling, and the media doing what it normally does to almost all modern Labour leaders (i.e. bash them relentlessly on everything). Perhaps the Blairites are right on this point. I'm just not inclined to believe them without actual evidence, especially when they are doing all they can to make their prophecies come true. Say what you like about the Left, but up until the Iraq War it at least behaved itself - what we're seeing here is a temper tantrum because the Establishment didn't get its way.    

[Hereward]

Mormont,

I believe you stand by that principle. I do not believe Corbyn does.

Anyway, your second para is a strange accusation. It suggests that it is not possible to believe that duty requires us to attack IS, while still believing that decent people can disagree, while being based on a statement that people holding that position simply like dropping bombs on people. That's a pretty clear double standard. 

[Hereward]

Well, we're not exactly swimming in available data on Corbyn's electability.

So far we've got the Blairites screaming that the sky is falling, and the media doing what it normally does to almost all modern Labour leaders (i.e. bash them relentlessly on everything). Perhaps the Blairites are right on this point. I'm just not inclined to believe them without actual evidence, especially when they are doing all they can to make their prophecies come true. Say what you like about the Left, but up until the Iraq War it at least behaved itself - what we're seeing here is a temper tantrum because the Establishment didn't get its way.    

In the absence of such data, why make the claim you made, then?

Up until the Iraq War the Left behaved itself?  The Left has been rebelling against Labour leaders since "the great betrayer" Ramsey Macdonald. And on joining WW2, on everything Gaitskell said and did. Against Wilson on incomes policy and the Common Market. Against Callaghan and Healey on the IMF bailout. Against Foot and Kinnock on deselection and Militant. On Kosovo and Afghanistan. And more recently, in Corbyn's case, on pretty much the entire Labour Party manifesto in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010. But now opposition to an as yet unstated policy is a temper tantrum?

[Chaircat Meow]

Corbyn has conceded a free vote, but wants the vote itself to be delayed, possibly in the hope momentum can intimidate some of the rebels in the meantime.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Does anyone have any views on the current travails of the labour party? Obviously I hope Jez hangs on as long as possible and runs the party into the ground, but I'm getting worried the knives are coming out and the PLP might just send a big fuck you to the members sooner rather than later.

Should Jez go in all guns blazing on Monday and try for a whipped vote. He won't be much of a leader if he can't ultimately compel the PLP to go his way on something he feels so strongly about. Is his time already up, and will labour bring in Jarvis or Benn to try and save the situation?

 

Why would you think that? Surely it is in your interests as a voter to have a competent electable opposition to the government and to have multiple viable choices come election day.

[mormont]

Mormont,

I believe you stand by that principle. I do not believe Corbyn does.

I don't think there's any reason to doubt that he does.

Anyway, your second para is a strange accusation. It suggests that it is not possible to believe that duty requires us to attack IS, while still believing that decent people can disagree, while being based on a statement that people holding that position simply like dropping bombs on people.

It really doesn't.

[The Marquis de Leech]

In the absence of such data, why make the claim you made, then?

I'm not the one making a claim. I'm the one disputing the claim that Corbyn is inherently toxic in marginal seats - the burden of proof doesn't lie with me, it lies with those screaming that the sky is falling. As it was, I found the above links as being what you get if you google "Jeremy Corbyn marginal seats", and while neither count as overwhelming evidence, it is more than has been provided by the "other" side of the debate. You know, the so-called conventional wisdom.

 

Up until the Iraq War the Left behaved itself?  The Left has been rebelling against Labour leaders since "the great betrayer" Ramsey Macdonald. And on joining WW2, on everything Gaitskell said and did. Against Wilson on incomes policy and the Common Market. Against Callaghan and Healey on the IMF bailout. Against Foot and Kinnock on deselection and Militant. On Kosovo and Afghanistan. And more recently, in Corbyn's case, on pretty much the entire Labour Party manifesto in 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010. But now opposition to an as yet unstated policy is a temper tantrum?

 

I was, of course, referring to the Left during the first half of the Blair era - I, for one, can't recall a frantic attempt to roll Blair for axing Clause IV, and notwithstanding that the kooky fringes of Blairism had no basis in traditional Labour Party thought (and little in common with the Old Right of the Labour Party), the party didn't start revolting until Iraq came along. What we've got here is party treason from the Right (I refuse to call them moderates) approaching the scale of the SDP, and for far less reason than the SDP.

(I also see you have a pretty flexible definition of Left. As if the disagreement on WWII conscription had anything to do with economics, rather than a debate about pacifism that sat outside the political spectrum. I'm also sure Foot would have been fascinated to learn that the bunch who were causing the real headaches for him were the Left, not the Right, given that he himself was an old-school Bevanite with impeccable Leftist credentials).

[Werthead]

Or alternatively the hill they've chosen to make a stand on is the principle of standing with your Allies against a bunch of medievalist barbarians who have actively attacked both them and this country. 

I haven't seen Corbyn arguing for halting military action in Iraq or not providing support to our allies which we already are, or even expanding that in terms of intelligence, diplomacy or training. So suggesting that he is actively working against that is hyperbole.

Corbyn's position seems to be the same as quite a lot of military experts in and outside the UK and US: that joining the war in Syria with absolutely no coherent strategy or military plan is a recipe for disaster at least as great as that of Iraq (the catastrophic failure of which, y'know, brought about this situation in the first place). In fact, that's already happening, there's no real need for us to join in and add the titanic firepower of, er, eight ground attack aircraft and a few more cruise missiles to it.

What is clear is that the elements that are not in place in Syria to bring about some kind of resolution to the problem - a diplomatic framework, coherent or even half-competent ground forces, a focused objective - are now coming together in Iraq, if more slowly than might be wished. The Kurds have achieved a strategic victory in retaking Sinjar, IS forces in Iraq are risking getting cut off and the Iraqi army is moving into Tikrit. The air campaign has massively reduced ISIS's ability to move, reinforce, resupply or sell oil and their funding has been devastated this year compared to last's. ISIS in Iraq is defeatable by the forces already on the board. ISIS in Syria is not yet in that position. It is illogical for us to engage in a token and very minor extra display of support for allies we are already supporting when we should be doubling down on the front where the war is actually winnable (at least in the short term, fuck knows what will spring up in Iraq afterwards).

Corbyn has conceded a free vote, but wants the vote itself to be delayed, possibly in the hope momentum can intimidate some of the rebels in the meantime.

This is an instantaneous self-contradiction. Corbyn had no need to "intimidate" some of the "rebels" (who are no longer rebels when there isn't a hard line for them to rebel against) when he could have simply put the whip in place and ordered them to vote with the party. By authorising a free vote, he has removed any mechanism by which intimidation can be attempted.

He also didn't want a delay, he wanted a longer debate so that reasoned argument might be employed by both sides to convince the other (including in their own parties, as the Tories have a significant number of doubters in their ranks). And that's been (kind of) conceded, with Cameron agreeing to provide twice the normal debating time in the space of one day.

In the meantime, 20% of the Tory Party membership is against military action and the Tory-majority Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted against it. A vote for military action is more likely to pass than not, but it may be tighter than expected even with the Labour free vote.

[Chaircat Meow]

 

I haven't seen Corbyn arguing for halting military action in Iraq or not providing support to our allies which we already are, or even expanding that in terms of intelligence, diplomacy or training. So suggesting that he is actively working against that is hyperbole.

Corbyn's position seems to be the same as quite a lot of military experts in and outside the UK and US: that joining the war in Syria with absolutely no coherent strategy or military plan is a recipe for disaster at least as great as that of Iraq (the catastrophic failure of which, y'know, brought about this situation in the first place). In fact, that's already happening, there's no real need for us to join in and add the titanic firepower of, er, eight ground attack aircraft and a few more cruise missiles to it.

What is clear is that the elements that are not in place in Syria to bring about some kind of resolution to the problem - a diplomatic framework, coherent or even half-competent ground forces, a focused objective - are now coming together in Iraq, if more slowly than might be wished. The Kurds have achieved a strategic victory in retaking Sinjar, IS forces in Iraq are risking getting cut off and the Iraqi army is moving into Tikrit. The air campaign has massively reduced ISIS's ability to move, reinforce, resupply or sell oil and their funding has been devastated this year compared to last's. ISIS in Iraq is defeatable by the forces already on the board. ISIS in Syria is not yet in that position. It is illogical for us to engage in a token and very minor extra display of support for allies we are already supporting when we should be doubling down on the front where the war is actually winnable (at least in the short term, fuck knows what will spring up in Iraq afterwards).

This is an instantaneous self-contradiction. Corbyn had no need to "intimidate" some of the "rebels" (who are no longer rebels when there isn't a hard line for them to rebel against) when he could have simply put the whip in place and ordered them to vote with the party. By authorising a free vote, he has removed any mechanism by which intimidation can be attempted.

He also didn't want a delay, he wanted a longer debate so that reasoned argument might be employed by both sides to convince the other (including in their own parties, as the Tories have a significant number of doubters in their ranks). And that's been (kind of) conceded, with Cameron agreeing to provide twice the normal debating time in the space of one day.

In the meantime, 20% of the Tory Party membership is against military action and the Tory-majority Foreign Affairs Select Committee has voted against it. A vote for military action is more likely to pass than not, but it may be tighter than expected even with the Labour free vote.

Corbyn voted against the airstrikes in Iraq (the vote was in 2014). So he does disagree with fighting ISIS in Iraq.  It is exactly the same war; leaving ISIS's lands in Syria free from air attack obviously makes things easier for them across the board (and so in Iraq). I have no idea why we didn't just join in the strikes in Syria from the start: everyone else has.

Corbyn did want to whip the party; Abbott was making noises about this all over the weekend. He then found the SC too opposed, and Watson came up with a compromise. He has not removed any mechanism by which intimidation can be applied: have momentum disbanded while no one was looking? He was telling rebel MPs they have nowhere to hide just today. Cameron refused to give Corbyn the extra time he wished, perhaps in part because there is a sense support for him from labour is leaking away.

 

edit: suggesting intervening with air strikes in Syria, against ISIS (not Assad) has the potential to be as big a disaster as Iraq 2003 is daft. Diplomatic initiatives can go on at the same time as airstrikes.  

 

 

 

[mormont]

Well, I'm sure we would all condemn any attempt to intimidate people into voting as their party leader prefers on this issue. Right?

We didn't join in the airstrikes for the same reason we're now attempting to join in, actually. That reason is 'David Cameron's political prospects'. Having lost the vote to bomb Assad's forces in Syria, Cameron was determined not to ask for another vote until he was certain of winning it, because if he had lost that vote it would be politically damaging to him personally. So he refrained from even asking the Commons to authorise airstrikes when the US began bombing ISIS in Syria.

'Everyone else is doing it' is not a very persuasive argument for a country to engage in military activity. Having said that, it's not any worse than 'we need to send a message to show the French we support them' or 'thee people are wicked' (because the areas we'll be bombing are exclusively populated by morally awful individuals, presumably?) As Wert says, we need to know: what are our objectives? How will these be achieved by the UK joining in the bombing? What are the likely consequences for the Syrian civil war, the refugee problem, tensions between Turkey and Russia, the wider spread of ISIS in other countries (eg Yemen)? This is a complicated and difficult issue, a potential quagmire, and what we're getting from our Prime Minister is 'if you vote against bombing you're a terrorist sympathiser!'

[Chaircat Meow]

Well, I'm sure we would all condemn any attempt to intimidate people into voting as their party leader prefers on this issue. Right?

We didn't join in the airstrikes for the same reason we're now attempting to join in, actually. That reason is 'David Cameron's political prospects'. Having lost the vote to bomb Assad's forces in Syria, Cameron was determined not to ask for another vote until he was certain of winning it, because if he had lost that vote it would be politically damaging to him personally. So he refrained from even asking the Commons to authorise airstrikes when the US began bombing ISIS in Syria.

'Everyone else is doing it' is not a very persuasive argument for a country to engage in military activity. Having said that, it's not any worse than 'we need to send a message to show the French we support them' or 'thee people are wicked' (because the areas we'll be bombing are exclusively populated by morally awful individuals, presumably?) As Wert says, we need to know: what are our objectives? How will these be achieved by the UK joining in the bombing? What are the likely consequences for the Syrian civil war, the refugee problem, tensions between Turkey and Russia, the wider spread of ISIS in other countries (eg Yemen)? This is a complicated and difficult issue, a potential quagmire, and what we're getting from our Prime Minister is 'if you vote against bombing you're a terrorist sympathiser!'

I'm not condemning Corbyn for trying to pressure his MPs. You know my opinion: he's the leader and on such an important issue he should try to get his way. Furthermore Cameron shouldn't have said what he said, because, while true, it is not the type of thing you use to win people over wrt a serious matter. I know why Cameron didn't ask for strikes in Syria from a domestic point of view: I'm saying I can't see that there is a good reason to have Wert's position, i.e. that bombing in Iraq is a good idea but extending the bombing over the rest of ISIS is a bad idea. It never made much sense. Corbyn at least has/had a consistent position: he's just against all of it.

[Horza]

There was a similar debate about joining the Syrian air campaign down here, thought not quite as intense, as Australian democracy is in such rude health that there was no question wasting precious parliamentary time on the matter. On the face of it,extending the operating area of a handful of planes a few hundred kilometers west to hit the same group doesn't seem like a particularly momentous decision but it is interesting what people on both sides of the question bring to it, if only to see the same arguments reproduced seemingly irrespective of the context in which bombs are hypothetically to be dropped.

Cameron is particularly impressive in this regard, churning out them old-time Blair-Bush hits with some some cosmetic tweaks but he's not the only person reliving 2003. Talking about adding a few extra bombers to the Operation Inherent Resolve - Syria roster as if it was a sudden change of pace with dramatic implications for Syria, the Middle East, Europe and Britain is slightly jarring, and I don't see how it marks any change of British objectives.

As far as I can tell Britain works to contain ISIS in Iraq by supporting ground forces fighting on the front lines and striking strategic targets behind, while working with relevant actors to advance attempts to bring the Syrian government and armed opposition to the negotiating table, hopefully to end the fighting and create a process that will lead to a government without Bashar al-Assad (or not, as it might turn out). Reducing ISIS's capacity to harm those actors seems like a necessary, if far from sufficient step towards those objectives, and Britain joining the Syrian air campaign would, I dunno, add a bit more flexibility somewhere in the logistics chain. Probably.

Planes with Union Jacks on them bombing ISIS inside Syria will not have any implications for Erdogan and Putin's epic meltdown, both parties are stated opponents of the Islamic State as demonstrated by their very occasional bombing of it. If anyone can outline how precisely UK planes hitting ISIS targets in Syria affects the growth of ISIS in Yemen, Libya, West Africa or anywhere else compared to if UK planes kept hitting ISIS targets only in Iraq they've got a bright career ahead at Chatham House or somewhere. As for the refugee problem: although it's no consolation to the people getting killed and maimed, out of all the air forces bombing Syria, Britain would be joining the one that goes to the furtherest lengths to prevent civilian casualties and avoid mass displacement. Russia and Turkey simply don't care, and trauma, death and displacement of the civilian population in opposition-held areas has been the a primary objective of the Syrian Arab Air Force from day one.

Those aren't reasons for joining the campaign per se, as everything above would continue to happen if Britain kept its current policy, or even withdrew its air forces completely. The Syrian-Iraqi war is a quagmire, but Britain is already in it. It can wade closer to where all the thrashing and wailing is, hang around at the edge or start to back away, but any course of action should be taken with the appreciation that at present almost everyone else is a lot more invested in rolling around in the muck. At least you guys are having a proper debate about it.

 

[mormont]

Furthermore Cameron shouldn't have said what he said, because, while true, it is not the type of thing you use to win people over wrt a serious matter.

Seriously?

I'm a terrorist sympathiser, then? Wert is? Anyone else?

[Hereward]

No, but Corbyn and McDonnell are. 

Edit: Whoops.

[SeanF]

No, but Corbyn and McConnell are. 

McDonnell for certain.