Labour leadership

[Pickman's model]

Often is, yes, but not always. Some debates, especially into uncontroversial, specialist bills, in which the few MPs attending are interested and well-informed, it can be high.

thus failing to sway the mass of absent mps

 

[Azrael]

Butchers, my naïveté ain't at issue, your absolute claim is, and you've offered nothing to back it, nothing at all.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers, my naïveté ain't at issue, your absolute claim is, and you've offered nothing to back it, nothing at all.

It not happening.

 

[butchersapron]

You'd think there'd be at least one counter-example since 1979 to be pointed to wouldn't you? A single example of a commons vote lost on the quality of debate.

 

[Azrael]

when was the last time you heard of a parliamentary speech swaying a debate?

Without research into MPs' reasons for voting, we don't know, but more to the point, I'm not claiming they have: its Butchers who made the absolutist claim that debates (not just single speeches) are irrelevant to the final votes.

If you, and he, value debate, you'll both agree that the claimant bears the burden: since Butchers isn't even trying to offer evidence, his own commitment to debate is, at best, questionable; and if you see no need to get him to justify his claim, so too is yours.

 

[butchersapron]

Without research into MPs' reasons for voting, we don't know, but more to the point, I'm not claiming they have: its Butchers who made the absolutist claim that debates (not just single speeches) are irrelevant to the final votes.

If you, and he, value debate, you'll both agree that the claimant bears the burden: since Butchers isn't even trying to offer evidence, his own commitment to debate is, at best, questionable; and if you see no need to get him to justify his claim, so too is yours.

No, it's over. No votes are won on the quality of debate today. Live in the modern world.

 

[butchersapron]

Without research into MPs' reasons for voting, we don't know, but more to the point, I'm not claiming they have: its Butchers who made the absolutist claim that debates (not just single speeches) are irrelevant to the final votes.

If you, and he, value debate, you'll both agree that the claimant bears the burden: since Butchers isn't even trying to offer evidence, his own commitment to debate is, at best, questionable; and if you see no need to get him to justify his claim, so too is yours.

No, you claim that some votes are won on the quality of debate. If there is no hard and fast rule then there is variation.The best you can offer in evidence is irrelevant.

 

[Azrael]

You'd think there'd be at least one counter-example since 1979 to be pointed to wouldn't you? A single example of a commons vote lost on the quality of debate.

I'll be extremely charitable and assume that you genuinely don't realize the following: you made a claim (debates are irrelevant to final votes); before anyone's under any obligation to rebut it, it's on you to offer some evidence, not just assume your conclusions (it never happened).

If you see no need to do this, you demonstrably couldn't care less about the principles of debate, and are therefore in no position to criticize MPs on that basis.

 

[Pickman's model]

Often is, yes, but not always. Some debates, especially into uncontroversial, specialist bills, in which the few MPs attending are interested and well-informed, it can be high.

yeh? when?

 

[butchersapron]

I'll be extremely charitable and assume that you genuinely don't realize the following: you made claim (debates are irrelevant to final votes); before anyone's under any obligation to rebut it, it's on you to offer some evidence, not just assume your conclusions (it never happened).

If you see no need to do this, you demonstrably couldn't care less about the principles of debate, and are therefore in no position to criticize MPs on that basis.

This is why a) you never win debates and b) think debates win things.

 

[butchersapron]

I'll be extremely charitable and assume that you genuinely don't realize the following: you made a claim (debates are irrelevant to final votes); before anyone's under any obligation to rebut it, it's on you to offer some evidence, not just assume your conclusions (it never happened).

If you see no need to do this, you demonstrably couldn't care less about the principles of debate, and are therefore in no position to criticize MPs on that basis.

I don't need to care less about the principles of debate (as outlined in a shocking fashion by you) in order to highlight something happening. No one does.

 

[Azrael]

No, you claim that some votes are won on the quality of debate. If there is no hard and fast rule then there is variation.The best you can offer in evidence is irrelevant.

Hardly a swaggering assertion, but if it helps you back you claim with something other than you own self-confidence (impressive as that is), I'm happy to withdraw it.

 

[butchersapron]

Hardly a swaggering assertion, but if it helps you back you claim with something other than you own self-confidence (impressive as that is), I'm happy to withdraw it.

So then you're left with none are won on the quality of debate. Or all are. So which is it?

 

[agricola]

John Mann on BBC News saying that what he wants is to see a genuine multinational response, led by the Arab nations and the Russians. Corbyn emphatically did not have a role in his decision-making.

 

[Pickman's model]

John Mann on BBC News saying that what he wants is to see a genuine multinational response, led by the Arab nations and the Russians. Corbyn emphatically did not have a role in his decision-making.

he's on everything these days, john mann

 

[agricola]

he's on everything these days, john mann

I think it must be because his name is more tweet-friendly than Danczuk, and less likely to set off swear filters than Woodcock.

 

[Mr Moose]

anyway the quality of debate in the commons is pisspoor

The right honourable gentleman may consider the debate 'pisspoor' but let me remind him that it is British and 'pisspoor' and therefore superior to debates held by the unfortunate inhabitants of less favoured realms or so we believe.

 

[gosub]

The right honourable gentleman may consider the debate 'pisspoor' but let me remind him that it is British and 'pisspoor' and therefore superior to debates held by the unfortunate inhabitants of less favoured realms or so we believe.

Mr Galloway goes to Washington for example.

 

[Azrael]

So then you're left with none are won on the quality of debate. Or all are. So which is it?

For sake of clarity, I've withdrawn all possible claims about the efficacy of Commons debates: we're left only with your extremely confident (and wholly unevidenced) assertion that they have no effect on votes.

If there's to be no evidence, very well: accepting your claim arguendo, how would you improve the situation? Since you assert that free votes are also unaffected, abolishing the whip system wouldn't work. So what would?

 

[butchersapron]

For sake of clarity, I've withdrawn all possible claims about the efficacy of Commons debates: we're left only with your extremely confident (and wholly unevidenced) assertion that they have no effect on votes.

If there's to be no evidence, very well: accepting your claim arguendo, how would you improve the situation? Since you assert that free votes are also unaffected, abolishing the whip system wouldn't work. So what would?

I couldn't care less.

 

[butchersapron]

Well argued though cholmondeley.

 

[Azrael]

John Mann on BBC News saying that what he wants is to see a genuine multinational response, led by the Arab nations and the Russians. Corbyn emphatically did not have a role in his decision-making.

A multinational response will require cutting some kind of a deal with Assad, which is probably inevitable, but just goes to show the realpolitik folly of the 2013 effort to depose him.

 

[butchersapron]

A multinational response will require cutting some kind of a deal with Assad, which is probably inevitable, but just goes to show the realpolitik folly of the 2013 effort to depose him.

So glib. So empty. And actually doing the question begging you ineptly tried to suggest that i was doing.

 

[Azrael]

I couldn't care less.

Your prerogative, but if you don't care, why comment?

 

[butchersapron]

A multinational response will require cutting some kind of a deal with Assad, which is probably inevitable, but just goes to show the realpolitik folly of the 2013 effort to depose him.

What's the real politck deal with assad that you'd like to see? His 15 000 revolutionaries tortured to death just forgotten about? The 100s of thousands civilians deaths just wiped away? All do-able in this world sort of world that you think politics happens in. What's not on the agenda for you though is the syrian revolutionaries even having a voice. Of course not, which is why this is gladstone waffle. Back to the past with you. You're not needed now.

 

[butchersapron]

Your prerogative, but if you don't care, why comment?

I didn't.

 

[Azrael]

So glib. So empty. And actually doing the question begging you ineptly tried to suggest that i was doing.

I suggested nothing, you assumed your conclusion, that's a plain statement of fact, but since you never cared about it, moving onto cutting a deal Assad: his nasty regime is the only form of government in Syria; if there was an organized, cohesive rebel movement, they could take over, but as we all know, they're hopelessly fragmented. Russia's support's contingent on not deposing the Ba'athists.

I'd like to see Assad rotting away in a Hague lockup, but politics being the art of the possible, ain't about desires. What viable alternative cutting a deal with Assad is there?

 

[butchersapron]

I suggested nothing, you assumed your conclusion, that's a plain statement of fact, but since you never cared about it, moving onto cutting a deal Assad: his nasty regime is the only form of government in Syria; if there was an organized, cohesive rebel movement, they could take over, but as we all know, they're hopelessly fragmented. Russia's support's contingent on not deposing the Ba'athists.

I'd like to see Assad rotting away in a Hague lockup, but politics being the art of the possible, ain't about desires. What viable alternative cutting a deal with Assad is there?

If you think any rebels - of whatever stripe- will ever stop fighting with assad in power then you need to not be part of this conversation. If you think that you can impose your favoured settlement from above on syria via govts then you need to get out of everywhere.

 

[Azrael]

What's the real politck deal with assad that you'd like to see? His 15 000 revolutionaries tortured to death just forgotten about? The 100s of thousands civilians deaths just wiped away? All do-able in this world sort of world that you think politics happens in. What's not on the agenda for you though is the syrian revolutionaries even having a voice. Of course not, which is why this is gladstone waffle. Back to the past with you. You're not needed now.

As "realpolitik" ought to've made clear, I wasn't making any kind of ethical judgment about Assad. To avoid any doubt, he's a bloodstained tyrant, and I'd be overjoyed to see him deposed, hooked up, and slung in jail. If you've a feasible way to make that happen, let's hear it.

Failing that, Assad, vile as he is, holds power in Syria, has Russia's support, and has to be worked with, even if it's only allowing him to stay in place through some transitional regime, then clear off into exile with a stash of loot. If he's deposed with no viable alternative, we could easily see ISIS become an actual state.

 

[Azrael]

If you think any rebels - of whatever stripe- will ever stop fighting with assad in power then you need to not be part of this conversation. If you think that you can impose your favoured settlement from above on syria via govts then you need to get out of everywhere.

It's not my favoured settlement; it's the settlement I can see working.

You could of course offer an alternative, and explain how you think it can come about. What is it? A coalition government led by the various rebel factions? OK: how d'you suggest they be unified, Daesh and its fellow-travelers be kept clear, Assad and his forces deposed, and above all, Russia be persuaded to ditch the Ba'athists?