POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

It started as a slow burner but yesterday the Mark Clarke affair exploded. See THIS for a BBC report of the resignation of Grant Shapps. In my opinion, about time to! Before this set of allegations surfaced he was damaged goods, remember the volte face over the accusations of running a rip-off 'wealth creation' website under the name of Greene? I know that it is subjective and at times dangerous to trust initial opinions about personalities but this bloke always struck me as being a chancer......
Elliot Johnson's father is to be congratulated for his persistence and I hope he gets the independent enquiry he is calling for. No parent should have to bury their child and for it to be caused, as looks likely here, by devious power mad functionaries intent on forcing through their version of politics, it is doubly cruel. Elliot may have been naive but he didn't deserve this serial bullying. Question is, is this an isolated incident or the tip of an iceberg?

[Tizer]

I wrote to Schapps when I had that problem over non-existent bats and our proposed house build but I never got a reply from him. After a couple of months I got a useless letter from one of his subordinates simply regurgitating the regulations and not addressing any of my concerns. So I'm glad to see him go!

[Stanley]

See THIS if you can bear to read it. A Guardian report on the latest state of play in the bullying scandal. I can't help wondering about David Cameron's intelligence. I could understand the 'He has my complete confidence' ploy if it was a minor matter and there was a chance that doing so could have a beneficial effect but in this case, on the evidence we have seen, it is far more serious than that and he may well end up finding out he has been supporting the wrong people and by doing so demonstrating that he doesn't know what is going on in his own party.

[Stanley]

Well. Jeremy has had to allow a free vote to avoid what was threatened by his MPs and Shadow Cabinet members who were threatening resignation. Personally I think he should have confronted them and forced them to either get with the programme or ship out. There is going to have to be a confrontation and resolution eventually. Better to get it over with and do this by leadership.
Like Corbyn I think the extension of bombing to Syria is wrong for these reasons.... We are doing all we are capable of now in Iraq and other areas, any involvement in Syria will automatically reduce our effectiveness in other roles. Where we could really make a difference is in extending diplomatic and intelligence activities in the area and facilitating the efforts of troops actively opposing IS already. However this would be secretive and would not give Cameron the opportunity to do his 'war lord' act. This is more to do with the outdated concept of 'punching above our weight' and keeping our status in world forums. High time we realised that we are a small country with significant assets other than military arms, the days of gunboat diplomacy have gone and this bombing campaign is just that. A gesture. Everyone knows that the only way IS can be reduced and hopefully contained is with old fashioned boots on the ground and even then the ideology will survive, probably stronger than ever.

[PanBiker]

The free vote decision I think was a given although an ideal opportunity to shift the dissenters if Jeremy was a purely political animal with no humanity which we all know he is not, hence where we are now. He has the considerable weight of the general Labour Party membership behind him not just in his election but also in his stance on this issue. He personally will vote against and no doubt in time will be proven right.

It's not a solution in any shape or form, It's purely mission creep which may well then lead to further escalation. We would be better off using the price of a few of the bombs to better fund the police and security services and why not chuck a few quid at organisations such as "anonymous" who are actively and successfully targeting the IT infrastructure of the terrorists, hacking accounts on Facebook, Twitter and other channels used for communication.

[plaques]

[Moved here by Tizer from `Today I shall be mainly...' at Plaques request.]

Piketty is adding a new dimension to the Syria debate. He has postulated that the rise of Isis is down to the inequality in the oil producing areas. "Piketty writes that the Middle East's political and social system has been made fragile by the high concentration of oil wealth into a few countries". LINK On the face of it he appears to have a valid argument but if this is so then it could easily spread to other countries which would be impossible contain.
The Commons debate and vote on joining in on the bombing of Isis does look like a dash to war before the realities on the situation has sunk in. Cameron's rhetoric of " cutting off the head of the snake" may be acceptable in children's comics but in the real world of military achievements it would be impossible by bombing alone. Al-Raqqah is just one of 14 administrative districts with a city population of 220,000, the sixth largest city in Syria. Isis now have control of more oil than the Assad government. Al-Raqqah "Syria's petroleum industry has been subject to sharp decline. In September 2014, ISIS was producing more oil than the regime at 80,000 bbl/d (13,000 m3/d) compared to the regime’s 17,000 bbl/d (2,700 m3/d) with the Syrian Oil Ministry stating that by the end of 2014, oil production had plunged further to 9,329 bbl/d (1,483.2 m3/d); ISIS has since captured a further oil field, leading to a projected oil production of 6,829 bbl/d (1,085.7 m3/d)." Syria . The politics of Syria itself is almost impossible to follow, the majority of the "insurgents" now fighting in Syria are following their own agenda. To claim that the sole interest of those fighting in Syria has a single focal point in removing Isis is total nonsense. The down side of all this is that I doubt that the MP's voting on the bombing issue have the slightest idea what is going on in Syria and are looking more to their own careers than the affect on the Syrian people.

[Tripps]

I got a new book today -
"Confrontaion- the war with Indonesia 1962 - 1966" by Nik Van De Byl.

I was in the area for the whole of the second half, of that time, and barely knew there was a war going on. I am disappointed to note that in a very detailed account, the unit to which I belonged is barely mentioned, and what is said about is quite is quite wrong. The smaller, but important, detachment where I worked for over two years gets no mention at all. Another example of the cliche that when you read something about an event at which you were present, it is usually wrong.

On a day when the talk is of bombing our latest enemy - it is interesting to read the Foreword written by Lord Dennis Healey who was defence minister in Harold Wilson's government at the time. For me the main points of interest are - the refusal to allow bombing; the ability to keep things secret; and his admiration for Ho Chi Min. Perhaps that was the real reason that Wilson kept us out of the Vietnam war?



Foreword:

We owed much to the skills in jungle warfare possessed by General Walter Walker, who wrote: 'It was indelibly inscribed on our minds that one civilian killed by us would do more harm than ten killed by the enemy'. So I refused the RAF's request to be allowed to bomb the Indonesian ports of entry in Eastern Borneo. However I did allow General Walker to send forces across the border so as to ambush the enemy soldiers before they enter Malaysian territory.The operations codenamed 'Claret', remained secret until long after the war was over.. A key role was played by 22 SAS. Their commander Lt Col John Woodhouse was the greatest guerrilla warrior produced by the West- a man to compare with Ho Chi Min. The SAS in Borneo worked in sixteen patrols of four men, each carrying medical supplies, and a variety of weapons. Both their officers and NCO's could speak Malay Thai and Arabic, had been attached to casualty wards in British hospitals to learn how to treat all types of injury, and made a point of treating local people as well as themselves. The British Army had learned under General Templar in Malaya that what is called 'the hearts and minds' of the local population was the precondition of success in guerrilla warfare.

[Tripps]

"why not chuck a few quid at organisations such as "anonymous" who are actively and successfully targeting the IT infrastructure of the terrorists, hacking accounts on Facebook, Twitter and other channels used for communication."

77 Brigade

'They' have already done so. Announced back in January. I thought it was ridiculous when I first saw it, but now I agree with you - it's a good idea. However to associate it with the Chindits is I think, silly, and frankly quite insulting.

[Stanley]

Ian, you are probably right. I admit that my anger at the people who are obstructing Jeremy got the better of me. These people, mostly Blairites if I understand the situation correctly, are totally ignoring the two key democratic principles, listen to the party members and subsume personal feelings in the cause of party solidarity. They want to run the Party like Blair did, as a personal vehicle to further their beliefs which are largely governed by self interest.
P. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. I think there's a lot in what he says and it is just one facet of the oldest problem of them all, the Western World's failure to understand the people of the region and interfering in what it sees as its own interests without any recognition that these are ancient and proud civilisations with their own interests.
David, interesting.... A bit more depth there than there is in Cameron's thought processes.As P says, his reference to 'cutting the head off a snake' demonstrates how ignorant he is. IS is not a single entity, it is a belief system that has been growing for over a thousand years starting with an internal argument in Islam and then propagated by Western intervention from the Crusades onwards.
See THIS for a Reuters report on Assad's take on Russian intervention. According to him, bombing by the west has done nothing to curb IS and whilst I recognise that this man is totally invested in survival and Russia is his best chance, he has a point.
Worth going back to what Dennis Skinner said the other day, we don't even know who the groups in Syria are. There was a time when we could have asked the Arabic experts at the Foreign Office which at that time was recognised as the most well informed body in the West on Arabic matters. Staffed by people who knew the language, the people and the region. We sit peering into computer screens now....
Apart from my natural antipathy towards anyone who wraps the flag round himself and spouts rhetoric, I have no confidence at all in Cameron's grasp of what is actually happening. The vote today will commit us to escalation of actions in Syria and it is a mistake comparable to Blair's decision on Iraq. Corbyn and those urging caution are right and I suspect this includes the majority of the electorate.
Did I hear right? Did Cameron refer to anyone who voted against bombing Syria as 'Terrorist Sympathisers'? Is this the level the debate is being conducted at?

[PanBiker]

Did I hear right? Did Cameron refer to anyone who voted against bombing Syria as 'Terrorist Sympathisers'? Is this the level the debate is being conducted at?

You did indeed and it's despicable and warrants a full and unequivocal apology in parliament. It's partly off the back of Ken Livingstones comments on QT last week as well which I seem to remember were well supported by the audience. It is gutter politics at it's worst but the comments will have done their job now in the minds of some factions of the electorate. Cameron has "terrorist sympathisers" in his party as well then, he had better watch his back.

[Tripps]

I copied this in August - it's an article from the Spectator. Interesting to read it again in the light of David Cameron's words. The fact that every speaker in the debate so far seems to be asking him to retract and apologise for the use of the words 'terrorist sympathisers', shows it seems to have hit a nerve.


And so too should his record on Northern Ireland. A vast amount of guff is now being peddled by Corbyn’s supporters on this. If we are to believe them, Corby’s willingness to talk to Sinn Fein and the IRA in the 1980s just showed how he was ahead of the game. After all, the British government eventually did so too, didn’t it?

This misses the vital point. Corbyn might have wanted ‘peace’ but he wanted it on the IRA’s terms. He wanted Sinn Fein and the IRA to win.

People genuinely interested in peace – and cross-community dialogue – back then didn’t speak at Troops Out rallies. They didn’t invite convicted IRA bombers to the House of Commons two weeks after the IRA attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister and the rest of her cabinet in Brighton. (A bomb, remember, that killed five people.)

And all this time, you know, Corbyn had a choice. You could believe in a united Ireland (regardless of consent) and that was, well, if not fine then certainly a position you could hold. But if that was what you felt you still had this choice: you could associate yourself with constitutional nationalists like the SDLP or you could pal around with Sinn Fein, the IRA and the republican movement. Corbyn chose the latter and that makes all the difference.

Even now he cannot actually bring himself to condemn IRA atrocities, weaselling out of suggestions he do so by condemning all atrocities. But normal people know that condemning IRA murders does not mean condoning Loyalist murders or, for that matter, the excesses of the RUC and British Army. Corbyn, however, still prefers to sing from the Republican song-sheet.

Some of this other dubious associations might be put down to naivete and, sure, it’s true you cannot always pick who speaks alongside you at a given event. On the other hand, you can control some things. There are some things you can do.

And Jeremy Corbyn chose to support Sinn Fein and, by extension, the IRA at a time when Sinn Fein/IRA had no interest at all in a ceasefire, let alone a lasting peace. That interest would only come when the IRA realised a military victory was impossible. Far from being ahead of the game, Corbyn was, at best, deluded, and at worst, marginally complicit in the murderous actions of a terrorist organisation that targeted his fellow citizens.

That none of this seems to trouble his supporters says all you need to know about the mess Labour finds itself in.

If – and perhaps this is unlikely – Corbyn makes it to 2020 even the most ludicrous, improbable, Tory could beat him. Running an anti-Corbyn campaign would be the greatest turkey shoot in the history of modern British politics.

The only difficulty would be deciding which of Corbyn’s Willie Hortons it would be most effective to focus upon. Bark-stripping will never be easier.

Choosing Corbyn is worse than a blunder, it’s a crime. One, moreover, that is terrible for this country’s politics. That’s why someone, anyone, even, Christ, Andy Burnham, would be a better choice for Labour. Because however decent Corbyn might be as a chap, there’s something repellent, something entirely indecent about his politics.

[plaques]

Running an anti-Corbyn campaign would be the greatest turkey shoot in the history of modern British politics.

I think we have already been seeing this for the last 3 months. Most right wing papers have been running a " Get Corbyn " campaign on every minor detail. But now on the run up to Christmas, its good will to all men except Syrians and for good measure lob a few bombs at them. To paraphrase Stanley's motto, The bombings will continue until God thinks otherwise.

[Tripps]

"Tripps wrote:"

No he didn't - he copied.
Just to offer a bit of counter balance to other views.
In fairness, I think the article is credible, and perhaps justifies Mr Cameron's comments?

[plaques]

No he didn't - he copied.

Yes I know, you said so up front. You have also said in the past that some of the things you offer up are to stimulate discussion. Devil's advocate and all that. Nothing wrong with this approach if the argument is sound and based on good evidence. Is the "Spectator" article credible? To my mind anyone who starts a discussion by saying they know what the other person is thinking, (Corbyn might have wanted ‘peace’ but he wanted it on the IRA’s terms.) is supposition and from this point the whole article loses credibility. One of the questions I keep asking myself is why are the right wing press attacking Corbyn with such ferocity? Is it because he is totally out of step and a danger to the country or is it because he is right and a danger to their established order? Time will tell but at the moment I know which way I am thinking.

[Stanley]

Casting Jeremy Corbyn in the role of the devil incarnate is an indication of how deeply his approach and attitudes have cut into the status quo in politics. I think he scares all 'career politicians' who are more interested in their status and preserving the way things are done now. They will never admit this because to do so would expose how self-centred their attitudes are. I mean 'consult the electorate'? How much more subversive can you get? Consider the march against war in Iraq... Who was right then?
Anyway, the 'debate' over bombing is superfluous now, the first bombs have been dropped. Expect Cameron to put his tin hat on and start announcing 'precision strikes' with no collateral damage. We have heard all this before. Meanwhile, there is no overall strategy, no certainty about the identity or aims of the forces opposing Assad and we don't even know for sure whether IS is a centrally run and controlled operation or just an amalgamation of fundamentalists all with their own agendas.
It's a mistake and a mess. The opponents will eventually be proved right but it will be too late.....
Just a thought.... How many of the members who made the decision and voted for bombing have any experience of being under threat of bombardment? I have the benefit of having some experience in these matters. I don't think they would be so gung ho if they shared that....
Meanwhile, the EU Central Bank is expected to inject €1.5trillion into the economy by more Quantitative Easing when it meets today. Attention has been diverted from troubles in the EU but the economy is flagging.... I wonder whether Ossie is taking note?

[Tizer]

What a mess we've got into in the Middle East. The argument keeps being used that we've got to do it to protect ourselves, that they'll attack us in the West, when the truth is that IS is more concerned with setting up its caliphate in the Middle East and North Africa. They attack us when we interfere with what they're doing in those regions. Instead of sending our planes on bombing missions over Syria we should have been encouraging countries in the region to use their own muscle power to stop war, as well as showing more religious tolerance.

Saudi Arabia for instance has many more, and newer, military aircraft than we do: "As of 2011, Saudi Arabia has around 300 combat aircraft. The kingdom's combat aircraft are newly acquired Typhoons and upgraded Tornado IDS, F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle fighter planes. It has a further 80+ F-15 Eagles on order and an option to buy another 72 Typhoons." Also: "12 attack helicopters; 50+ transport helicopters; and 1,000 surface-to-air missiles" (Wikipedia) Saudi Arabia's population is 85% Sunni and the country should play a greater part in controlling the extremist activities of IS.

(I learnt an interesting fact when looking up some of the above figures. Although only 15% of the Saudi population is Shia they are concentrated in the area that has most of the oilfields. No wonder Saudi Arabia keeps the Shias under a tight control.)

[Thomo]

In one way or another, the Middle East has always been a turbulent area since BC, this cannot now be put right without the help and resolve of the many different peoples in that area. I heard and watched many of the arguments for and against this latest development. As a veteran I understand the concerns and have a fair idea of the complexity of such an undertaking, or as one Lady put it on TV last night "Damned if we do, and Damned if we do not". If we now experience a revenge attack here, it will be the fault of last nights decision and consequently the Government, if this decision had not been taken, and an attack did occur here, the blame would lay in the same quarter. Possibly one of the most irritating arguments put forward on 3 occasions by an MP on behalf of his constituency was in the naming of this fanatical group who are largely the cause of the trouble, IS, or ISIL, or ISIS is considered to be deeply offensive to his supporters as the "I" means Islamic. Personally I do not believe that that is of sufficient importance to muddy the waters, call them whatever you wish, the fact remains that they are not very pleasant whichever side of the fence you are on, no mercy. no compassion, just a hatred of anything outside of their warped thinking, they are prepared to kill their own kind to further their cause. My thoughts are with the Service Personnel involved, I wish them well, and a safe homecoming.

[PanBiker]

The debate about naming of the group also includes the use of "State" within the acronym. This, according to the cross party Parliamentary group that was set up to discuss alternatives gives them some kind of credence and should also be avoided. As they are not representative of Islam as the rest of the world understands the ideology and do not have any form of State that is their own they have proposed using the term "Daesh" instead of the plethora of other terms being used. I noticed yesterday that this was accepted by the house and by most speakers during yesterday debate. The BBC have been asked to adopt this terminology as well but they have said that to do so would break impartiality.

[Thomo]

It was ever thus!!!!

[Stanley]

Like it or not, Putin got it about right.... he said that the chaos in Iraq and Syria was largely a consequence of Western interference in those countries. (He didn't mention Afghanistan of course....) I have banged on about our treatment of the area for years (and been told that 'ancient history' has no bearing on the present day) and have taken the trouble to learn as much as I could. Read up the Crusades, get hold of 'The Seven Sisters' and read about the machinations of the major oil companies. Look up Gertrude Bell and her role in the 'rationalisation' of what was three separate kingdoms in Mesopotamia with no regard for ethnic or religious divisions producing modern Iraq. Read David Omissi on Air Power between the wars in which he details how we treated the Arabs in the new state to bolster the new state. Then look at the era of Saddam and how we at first supported him and then turned on the Ba'ath regime which was using the constitution drawn up by Gertrude Bell and the Foreign Office. Read Baer 'See No Evil' for the inside story of the disastrous way the US created insurgency in Afghanistan to counter the Russians and then abandoned them producing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Read up the origins of the schism between Sunni and Shia. Basically the Western Powers and religions collectively have stirred up a hornet's nest over more than a thousand years.... You couldn't make it up! What is happening now is the product of political and religious interference based on the proposition that some of the earliest and most successful civilisations in the area were barbaric. As far as the UK is concerned, the decision to bomb is just another deluded mistake on a long and dangerous road. That's right, I am appalled and pessimistic.

[Tizer]

We've been told in recent days how it was important for RAF planes to join in the `war' in Syria because they are the only bombers with Brimstone missiles which have unique capabilities for hitting fast-moving vehicles etc. This isn't true. Saudi Arabia's Tornado jets are also equipped with Brimstone. I'm surprised by the implication that no US aircraft are equipped with the same missile system. Brimstone is made by a US company, MBDA Inc, and I can't believe that the US military are not using it. The RAF has had it since 2005 and it was used in Libya and Afghanistan. I suspect the US are equipped with it but are keeping this secret.

[Thomo]

I would imagine that we are all appalled, and pessimistic, and that many of us are fully aware of past mistakes, that is how this planet has evolved. Blaming each others ancestors for the current situation will not resolve it. I also remember what it like to be bombed having been in Liverpool twice in WW2. I have also been under fire from the Khmer Rouge, the Viet Kong, physically injured by Eastern Bloc Agents in Liverpool, and in the 1980's threatened by the IRA in Burnley and Barnoldswick, a threat on a friend of mine led to his death in Earby. Unlike many local British people I have been to most of the Countries involved and have a fair idea of how these people are concerned just as we are about the future. I also know that the effect on the normal peace loving members of the Islamic community wherever they are is hard to imagine, guilt by association is difficult to deal with, it is a grey area. The US has announced that they are sending "special forces" to Syria and Iraq, their reputation is not good, too many "blue on blue" incidents. The Germans have now joined the air battle, so in the skies over Syria we will have a number of past enemies, British, French, Russian, US and German, and others!.

[PanBiker]

I do think it is important to understand or try to, how we arrived at the present situation. We have to look to history for many of the reasons and it seems that where the current theaters are concerned we seem hell bent on repeating past mistakes.

I wonder if shortly we will have to face another "Uncle Joe" moment as in the last full on global conflict. At the start of WWII Stalin was allied with the Germans, then when invaded our Allie, after the end of that conflict he and the union were again regarded as enemies as the Cold War unfolded.

Just over two years ago, Cameron was asking parliament for permission to bomb the Assad regime. Will it become a case of "any enemy of my enemy is my friend". Russia seems to be siding with him, bombing both ISIL and any other factions who may oppose the present regime which I suppose could also be classed as a "blue on blue" situation but deliberate in this instance. One thing is certain, it is a whole can of worms with no actual parallel to compare the situation with, not in the history that I am aware of anyway.

[Stanley]

Well, there's a funny thing.... Read THIS BBC report on the Oldham West and Royton by-election.... I seem to remember reading that Labour was losing support hand over fist under Jeremy Corbyn but the voters have said otherwise, they increased their share of the vote polling 62%, better than under the long serving and popular Michael Meacher. If, as Farage said, this was a referendum on Corbyn, he's not done too badly at all. Best bit of news I've seen for a while. Tories take note, it may be that the new attitude to politics and an anti-austerity policy under Jeremy has more traction with the voters than they would have us believe.
I've just read Ian's post which crossed mine. You are quite right I reckon. There is widespread concern about Cameron's statement that there are 70,000 fighters out there in Syria waiting to be organised by the West.... Nobody seems to be quite sure who they are. It has been suggested that this is perhaps a re-run of Blair's dodgy dossier. Apart from the obvious holes in his case, like where is the strategy, we have no clear idea what hard intelligence he was given before making this claim. Who exactly are these fighters?

[Pluggy]

I think Farage whinging about electoral fraud when Labour got almost 3 times as many votes is lame in the extreme.

They beat you flat, live with it.

There's no answer to Syria, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.