United Kingdom
Related: About this forumOh my, Cameron called the opposition to his Syria bid "terrorist sympathizers"!
What do you UK DU'ers think ?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/02/philip-hammond-dampen-row-over-david-cameron-terrorist-sympathisers-slur
Live debate here: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2
2naSalit
(86,780 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)Was born in UK, but live in US.
Am as dismayed at the ongoing popularity of the Right in England, as I am at it in the US; turns out that millions of our fellow citizens are quite comfortable with these (as my East End dad would've said) craphounds.
T_i_B
(14,748 posts)And I say that as a (reluctant) supporter of military intervention in Syria.
This is a complex and very difficult issue and needs to be handled as such.
As a Yank who is watching, I think he needs to apologize. He only hurt his case with that stupid remark.
Denzil_DC
(7,257 posts)So far, with a few predictable low points, it's been a good debate.
Cameron could have defused it at an early stage with two simple words and a bit of basting: "We all want to do what's best, feelings are running high, but I apologize."
He's not man enough, and certainly not statesman enough, to do that.
He'll no doubt "win" tonight's vote. Hell mend him. It'll be a pyrrhic victory, and his shame will only be matched by those who voted for ulterior motives, whatever way - to settle a score, stick it to Corbyn, hope of furtherance, or being craven before the media, whatever.
So next, watch for the mission creep back into Libya, where the well-telegraphed initiatives have driven some of Daesh and others' leaders to take refuge.
And nothing much is likely to change for the better, for Syrians, Kurds etc., or those who feel threatened in the West.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Denzil_DC
(7,257 posts)The more the merrier, and knowing you from the Computer Help & Support Group - welcome to our little backwater!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)I get the feeling several MPs think his case must be weak if he had to resort to baiting like that. The '70,000' ready to be anti-ISIS troops (but note from Assad's army) is widely disbelieved, too.
Denzil_DC
(7,257 posts)397 for the motion, 223 against
67 Labour MPs voted for. That's at the low end of the 60-90 range I saw quoted by a reliable pundit last night (one source today was predicting as many as 99).
The cross-party amendment opposing airstrikes was defeated 390-211 (i.e. there were more abstentions).
Ironing Man
(164 posts)everything i've read today suggests that anywhere approaching 80-90 was a number being put about by the Corbyn camp so that the real figure would look like a damp squib.
Hilary Benn made a very good - the best(?) - speech, and when he sat down he was applauded by 70+% of the MP's on all sides. the delightful Diane Abbot turned around from the Labour front bench to scowl at Labour M's clapping the Labour shadow Foreign Secretary...
more fisticuffs to follow i feel.
Denzil_DC
(7,257 posts)He's not a fan of fascism, I gathered that. And applause? I thought the SNP were a bunch of yobs for exhibiting such unparliamentary behaviour.
Many (I'd argue far more substantive) speeches today from all parties, except the DUP and Lib Dems (unless I missed one), expressed serious and very well thought through doubts about a large number of aspects of the government's approach. I don't recall Benn rebutting any of them.
BTW, you've apparently fallen into the trap of making this all about Corbyn. I have nothing but contempt for any member who voted on that self-seeking basis on an issue like this, and it doesn't do justice to what were a surprising number of thoughtful speeches from both sides of the debate (I'm ignoring the absolute zoomers for now).
ETA, for completeness: If you really want to talk about Labour in this context, we might as well have some figures: of the shadow cabinet 11 voted for, 16 against, 1 abstained (don't have details of names, but I think we can make some informed guesses - the abstention was chief whip Rosie Winterton).
Denzil_DC
(7,257 posts)Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an act of war but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response.
...
He outlined his thinking: Why? Because the vacuum in which Isil/Daesh [Islamic State] in Syria thrives is a consequence of that civil war.
Therefore I hope that the talks that are taking place really will redouble their efforts to say, look weve got a find a way of bringing this to a conclusion weve got to bring this to an end.
Because then, people can then really focus their efforts on the threat from Isil/Daesh and the circumstances in Syria will have changed.
Mr Benn, who supports military intervention to protect civilians, said he did not think the Government was planning to come forward with a proposal to extend air strikes from Iraq into Syria.
But asked if he thought they should, Mr Benn said: No. He added: They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.
The shadow Foreign Secretary added: The most useful contribution we can make is to support as a nation the peace talks that have started. That is the single most important thing we can do.
...
MPs scepticism towards military action hardened after the Tory-led Foreign Affairs Select Committee called on the government to rule out the prospect until a strategy had been developed to defeat IS. Mr Benn said Russias intervention into the conflict to prop up President Bashar al-Assad had complicated matters even further, and called for a negotiated peace.
He said: The government has come to realise the Russian military intervention has changed the position on the ground, and I think that has given them pause for thought.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hilary-benn-shadow-foreign-secretary-says-labour-wont-back-air-strikes-on-syria-a6734651.html
Leadership material.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)People have (quite rightly IMO) criticized McDonnell for his remarks linking the government to Maoism; but this behaviour by Cameron is on the same level, and more sustained.
Does Cameron seriously regard Andrew Tyrie and David Davis as 'terrorist sympathizers'???