Corbyn's letter.

[Workingman]

He has written to all Labour MPS stating that he cannot support Syrian air strikes.

What is wrong with that?

Is it wrong to disagree with the PM? Many Conservative back-benchers do. Is it wrong to have an opinion and to express it? Has he imposed a three line whip, as other leaders do, to force his MPs to follow him? No!

It is a non-story, yet the media is all over it like a rash.

[TheOstrich]

There is nothing wrong in it in itself ......

But the fascination lies in the fact that Corbyn's views are at odds with most of the shadow cabinet and quite a few in the PLP.

And the views of the most of the shadow cabinet and quite a few in the PLP are at odds with the hard-line activists currently trying to take over the Labour Party.

And the views of the hard-line activists trying to take over the Labour Party are at odds with, I would suggest, the majority of people in this country.

That's quite a few entertaining talking points ....

Has he imposed a three line whip, as other leaders do, to force his MPs to follow him? No!

Not yet!

[Suff]

The fact is that Corbyn was voted in by the Unions and a majority of Labour party members. His views are different from the majority of the MP's in his party and the majority of the voters who voted for those MP's.

When he makes a stand even the Unions are now wary of him. They thought they were getting an old fashioned labour leader who was all for the Unions, the workers and stuff the toffs and the businesses.

What they failed to realise is that old fashioned Labour were fighting a situation massively different from where we are today. Also those old fashioned Labour had been through a war with Germany and Japan on three different fronts. They knew the absolute value of British military power and defence.

Corby is a western communist who believes that we can spend all our defence money on people who don't care about him or his politics so long as he gives them money.

So when he as to write to his Labour MP's it's news. Because it shows the massive divide between him and his party and even his voters.

I shall continue to enjoy this. He won't impose a 3 line whip unless his back is totally to the wall. Because if he does and 100 MP's break it, he is powerless. Because he can't expel 100 MP's from the party and remain either a leader or even relevant.

I'm enjoying his position. He wanted the hot seat and is now finding out what it is all about. All those times he rebelled (over 500 of them) and now he's facing a rebellion and the reality of what it means to his policies and his beliefs and his management of the party.

There is some really sardonic dark humour there and I will enjoy it to the limit.

[Workingman]

So you two, and the media, all missed it.

Corbyn has ideas and he is not going to give them up to be popular.

I disagree with many of his ideas, but I do admire him for sticking to them.

I will never, ever, vote for him, but I do love the way he messes with your heads.

Go Jezza!

[cromwell]

I do not support bombing Syria because I can see no long term UK strategy for the middle east. Just chucking a few bombs in there is going to do no good. The whole situation is a mess.

We are supposed to be fighting ISIS. Our alleged chums in Saudi Arabia have been funding and arming these people. The USA is supposed to be fighting ISIS. Yet it knows Saudi is funding ISIS, but sells Saudi Arabia 10,000 TOW anti tank missiles - some of which end up with ISIS. That's before we start looking at the Turks and Jordan buying oil from ISIS.

All that needs sorting out first.

We've been here before remember, in Iraq and Libya. What did we achieve by bombing them?

Isn't one definition of insanity (or stupidity, I forget which) to keep on making the same mistakes whilst expecting a different outcome?

[Suff]

No I didn’t miss the inference. But I see a different person. You, WM, see a principled person standing up for what he believes in.

I, on the other hand, see a weak person filled up with ideology but not principles. A person who has their back to the wall and who’s own actions, if applied to his tenure as Labour leader, would damage his leadership even more. I’m pretty sure that every time he defied the PM and defied the whip, he never expected to be on the other side of the rebellion.

I see a person who’s ideology does not allow him to do the job he signed up for. I have the same sympathy for anyone who knowingly takes a job they cannot do and expects people to make allowances for them. Namely Zero.

On the bombing side this is different. We are slowly but surely leading to a situation where the Assad troops will be able to follow up behind the bombing and consolidate driving IS out. This is quite different from the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. France and Russia are negotiating that right now.

Fortunately Cameron never started a campaign to unseat Assad so he can side with Assad on this one to secure the UK from terrorism.

This time bombing makes sense. The US is backing France, France is working with Russia, with the UK and UK bases involved from Cyprus, we could make a significant difference to the entire campaign and the outcome would be a massive blow to IS which could be consolidated in Iraq by the Kurds. Even better for me, Turkey doesn’t want any of this, so that, given what they have been doing, works just fine for me.

Troops on the ground will be special forces doing target designation and not fighting IS direct. Maximising the impact of every bomb we drop.

If it does raise the risk of terrorism then it is a risk we will face in the future anyway. So do we want to face it from an IS, under heavy stress, on the back foot and fighting for their lives? Or do we want to face it from a strong and powerful IS, fully funded and waging a war of terror for acquisition?

[Workingman]

I actually see a guy who can say and do what he likes (politically) as he is the leader of the Labour party and it is a distant second in the power stakes. Both are largely irrelevant.

He is the leader of HM's official opposition to government, an important and necessary institution, yet the only opposition is internal to Labour. I have to say, at this point, that would still be the case had Burnham, Cooper or Kendall become leader.

The only way things could get worse for Labour, and the country, is for it to split. The largest part would be even further away from power and the rump probably on a similar footing as the LibDems. The country would end up as a one party state under the Conservatives.

So, yes, I do get a bit of a chuckle on when I see the media falling over itself trying to destroy what is already under self-destruct.

As for Syria, I agree with Cromwell. Our few more aircraft and bombs will not make any difference. As I said in another post we could do more by taking a more leading role in Iraq and leave Syria to the USA, France and Russia.

An analysis by RUSI said that eventually troops will be necessary because the air war alone cannot get rid of IS.

[Suff]

Actually Corbyn thought he could say and do as he wanted. He thought that he could gag his MP's, whip his front bench and shadow cabinet and ignore them when he felt like it.

What is now being borne to the consciousness of Corbyn is that he is a leader of a group of MP's who have affiliated themselves with an idea and will support that idea. Sadly for Corbyn that is not the same idea as his.

Those MP's are representatives of their voters. Every 5 years they get the horrifying task of justifying themselves and their decisions and actions to the public. That leader has already shown that he is unwilling and incapable of leading the UK in a war, defending the UK against aggression and maintaining UK political influence in the world.

Voters know that and there are plenty of Labour voters who could vote Lib Dem if their party starts going down a rathole they don't want it to. The Labour MP's know this and will vote accordingly. It will only take one or two serious revolts (half the MP's), for Corbyn to be gone. Personally I don't want that because the Tories are not strong enough, yet, to defeat a 3 way Lab/Lib Dem/SNP grand coalition. I, personally, want one more term of the Tories to straighten things out. We can't afford Labour until we balance the books and we can't do that when the Tories themselves are voting against the measures to bring down the deficit.

Once we reach a budget surplus, then we'll have to spend the next 50 years paying off the £2TN in debt we will have run up before we got it under control. Oh don't forget the press has stopped telling us about the climbing debt. Be sure they will shout loud and clear when we exceed 100% of GDP, but silence again thereafter.

As for bombing? It's simple. Sorties come down to turn around time. Pretty soon the naval fleet France is using is going to start breaking down, no single carrier group can keep up that tempo of operations without losing aircraft to stress. Bringing in the UK will keep the tempo where it is without overstressing the aircraft. The bases in Cyprus will give a much needed relief for the sorties, landing on a carrier in all weather is no joke and, eventually, it will cost lives.

So where are we when our allies need us?

Well we're arguing about what good it will do US to get in there and help support them....

Nice. There were a lot of choice words in NATO about the lack of NATO support in Bosnia. If we are going to do the same then we have to expect the same level of criticism. Stabilising Syria and getting rid of IS is not just in our interest, it's vital to the whole world to make sure that these reservoirs of fundamentalism and terrorism are crushed, once and for all.

Yes it will take ground troops. But better those ground troops are Syrian, picking over the wasteland of bombed and destroyed fortified positions than our own troops in there. It's a no brainer. The longer we bombard IS, the more damaged their infrastructure, military capability and morale is. Which will make them easier to mop up and kill off. If we use the Syrians we have a good chance of wiping them out. If we use NATO forces, we'll likely have thousands of hostages who we will, eventually, have to let go. Once we let them go they will simply find another hole and start all over again.

It's time for Corbyn to Man Up and for Cameron to Wise UP. Notably neither are doing a particularly good job of it right now.

[KateLMead]

So you two, and the media, all missed it.

Corbyn has ideas and he is not going to give them up to be popular.

I disagree with many of his ideas, but I do admire him for sticking to them.

I will never, ever, vote for him, but I do love the way he messes with your heads.

Go Jezza!

"The mans a nutter Frank". And a dangerous one at that!!!

[Workingman]

Kate, he is dangerous only in that he could split Labour and that would be bad for the country in the short term until a new opposition arose.

All these things that he would, or would not, do if he was PM are neither here nor there: he never will be PM. He might not even be Labour leader for much longer.

What makes me laugh is that the media and Tories are hell bent on destroying him when, for the Tories, he is their best asset and a guarantee of a landslide in the next GE and probably the one after.