Labour MP's harassment

In Parliament MPs represent their constituents, not the party they belong to.

What the vast electorate want they can vote for, but how can a labour MP expect to leave the party yet represent the party , they cannot, so they can do as the social democrats did, form their own party which lasted a short time then went with the liberals

Oh har har.
Moderate Labour MP's simply don't want very left wing (socialists) running the party....... Neither do the people who matter, the vast electorate.

A chap who was a speech writer and friend of Blair has found the solution of rifts in the Labour Party . The party members want Corbyn as leader but back benches do not so the backbenchers should form a new party ! Why don't they just cross the floor ?

Excellent post Eleothan. Dj will endeavour to read links later. Have decided I need to improve my understanding of the matter.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/18/john-mcdonnell-meets-police-after-receiving-death-threats-online

Anybody else notice this today? It's not just the far left targeting the Blairites.

theconversation.com/saudi-arabias-coalition-is-a-brazen-challenge-to-syria-iran-and-the-us-52455

This is what Saudi is doing. It's formed a coalition to fight IS, but forgot to tell the other parties to the coalition.

Agree with you Petallus. I read it two thirds of the way through. It's written for right wingers to agree with. It would have been better if he did not sneer so much at all things left wing. It puts you off.
I would also have preferred it if he had said what he thinks about Saudi Arabia's part in this. Or was that in the last third that I did not read?

That's what the Syria Campaign was set up for, Petallus, to stop the civil war and let the Syrians deal with IS.

thesyriacampaign.org/#

I notice that some sort of agreement has been reached by the UN today, but without saying anything about Assad.

This chap Twll Dun (is that a real name or an alias? I searched it but could find nothing, the only similar words coming up being twll din which is Welsh.

His concluding comment was that he was "somewhere between "soft left" and "hard right", which I found surprising since the major part of his article appeared to be devoted to deriding both the "soft" and "hard" left - sometimes in a most insulting way:

"like the monkeys in the zoo, the far left flung as much shit at the wall as possible".

After sneering at those he calls the "hard left", he then turns his attention to the "soft left" who he describes as "parochial", "tribal" and only worried about their own day-to-day lives - their pay rises/benefit cuts, etc.

He goes on to talk about "silly, wavy hand pacifism", little Englanders who wish to pull up the drawbridge. Those who suggest that spending billions on dropping bombs on people will neither help them nor us are dismissed as being "inherently selfish".

He says their preoccupation with "politician X being friends with arms dealers, or politician Y being in thrall to certain countries is unimportant and a mere "distraction". Some people - and not just those on the left - feel that these sorts of issues need to be addressed because they very pertinent to the current situation.

There is no serious analysis of the very complex Syrian situation and no acknowledgment that what is occurring there is a civil war between pro and anti Assad factions - with civilian non-combatants supporting or opposing Assad or the Free Syrian Army. A further complication is the many other warring tribal and religious groups, each with their own agenda - some very different from our own - and each backed by different countries - including "super powers" who too have their own motives for getting involved in the matter. There have been two or three removals and replacements of leaders of the Free Syrian Army since 2012 which surely places some doubt on the stability of the organisation. US air strikes against Syria began in September 2014 and yet all the bombing appears to have achieved very little other than more homes, towns and vital infrastructure being destroyed.

Given that Twll Dun appears to having nothing but disdain for the "soft" and "hard" left, one wonders why he identifies himself as somewhere in between the two of them. He certainly doesn't sound as if he is.

Well I read it all the way through the article which I didn't find easy since I find his style obnoxious. I would have preferred a less emotional and more balanced account of his views.

I suppose we all look for evidence to back up the view we already hold on matters such as this.

I was impressed with an interview on Radio 4 this morning with two journalists. Both of them thought bombing Syria was only making the situation worse, increasing the hatred Syrians already feel towards the West.

The impression of these journalists was that instead of going for IS the West should help to stop the civil war and then led the Syrians deal with IS themselves. Present actions of the West are only swelling numbers of those who turn to IS.

Well, I've represented the argument as best I can from what I remember. I am sure those more knowledgeable and certain of the right way for us to proceed than I am will find it easy to dismiss it.

Well that just about says it all. It certainly resonates with me too.

I agree with what he says, no surprise there though I suppose .

Very interesting view, thatbags, and I can see why it resonates with you.

Good link.

This is an extraordinarily good essay on the Syria problem and our government's involvement in it. It looks at the alternative that STW propounds.

I know not everyone likes or reads links. This is for people who are interested. The writer, Twll Dun, expresses my feelings on the issue almost exactly. Whilst I know full well (how could I not on Gransnet? ) that STW supporters won't agree with this view, as I don't agree with theirs, I'll say this: it is not an unreasonable, nor an uncaring, nor a 'bad' view. It is based on reason, on love of one's fellow humans, and on the desire for a solution.

Libya is undoubtedly a problem with regard to ISIL (which country isn't?) . I had previouly mentioned in a post somewhere on GN that there is a hope for some unity against ISIL and spoke of rival factions making an attempt for a peace treaty.

Yesterday in Morocco two rival factions signed a United Nations backed agreement to form a Unity Government. The General National Congress based in Tripoli and the internationally recognised House of Representatives based to the east in Tobruk signed the Accord in Skhirat.

My understanding is ISIL has a hold on the coastal area of Sirte and nearby towns such as Nawfaliya and Harawa. Most of the fighters are from the Ansar Al-Sharia group. ISIL will obviously have pockets throughout Libya.

There is a will in Libya to defeat ISIL by the Libyan people and I think they will call for help from the United Nations at some stage. The signing of the accord is a step in the right direction. Will it work???? Who knows the area is so volatile. Will it last ???? Who knows they all have their own agenda. But at least it is a 'hopeful' sign that Libya has started to think in terms of political will not by constant fighting so it can only be a good thing, however long it lasts.

The continued bombing of oilfields in Syria and Iraq has indeed cut off a large percentage of Daesh's income. But they are a growling faction now in Libya, which is also oil-rich, and I foresee military action being extended into that country before too long.

Sometimes when there is fighting and trouble in another country people complain that the rest of the world isn't doing anything to help victims of the conflict. An example is the kidnapping of all those schoolgirls by Boko Haram in Nigeria.

I believe some Syrians did ask for outside help. That is why STW's reported refusal not to listen to any Syrians at a certain meeting about the conflict there has been widely criticised. People feel STW's reporting is very one-sided.

You know very well, bags, that my quote was about whether the STWC was against Russian bombing as well. I was saying it was, so stop trying to deflect the question.

Of course I know there has been a civil war in Syria. We were not asked to join in and should not have.
Is that what Britain's forces are for? Oh, that's good, there's a war in ... Let's go and bomb them to make them see sense. When we've messed up the whole area, we'll leave them to it. Serves them right.

Especially if the bombs are targeted at Isil's source of revenue, ie oilfields.

The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse with more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.

The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse without more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.'

Equally clear and valid either way.

You do know there has been a civil war raging in Syria for several years, I suppose, dj? That's a war within a country fought by its own citizens.

First 2 paras supposed to be highlighted as they are from djen's post.

*The recent upsurge in activities against the Syrian debacle is due to the growing realisation that the murderous chaos in the region that has produced such misery will get worse with more bombs. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian war refugees seeking shelter in Europe has made many realise that the way to peace is not through a war waged by the US, Europe and Russia.'

Is this clear enough for you?*

Not really. The first sentence above would read equally well if the third word from the end were changed to 'without'. I think that's why so many MPs voted in favour of targeted drone strikes in Syria as well as in Iraq.

It is not war waged by the US, Europe and Russia that has led to the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees but war waged by other Syrians.

Elegran, it certaintly had a lot to do with some of the posts on this thread following the question from Nigglynellie

. I am a socialist , I am a member of STW and Hope not Hate, I speak out against all bombing no matter the country dropping the bombs , I protested against the Iraq war and we had a labour government then did we not