Labour leadership

[butchersapron]

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.

What does hold power mean? That he has 1/2 the country in established rebellion against him? What does this power consist of? He is killing more than ISIS at the rate of 100 to 1. And you're worried that the 1 killers might win? he's just killed a quarte of a million people under the slogan of assad or the country burns and you think he'll womble off with some money? Are there any subjects on which you're not dangerously and monstrously naive?

 

[butchersapron]

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?

Oh god. Here we go again

Given your ill-informed fantasy, here's mine (mine has the advantage of actually happening right now). The SDF continue it's attacks on the Islamists in north allepo and force themselves through to jarabulus where they meet the kobani canton and the ypg - pinning isis down to defending either the border area or raqqa. Either way raqqa is then attacked by the SDF moving south from tel abyad and west from hasakah whilst the NSA move north west from Deir ezzor. All this consolidating a widespread anti-assad and anti-isis coalition handing over power to local non-sectarian co-coordinating committees as they go (as they are already doing across north syria, defusing sectarian or tribal tensions as they go). Thus pulling the FSA brigades in central north syria firmly to the SDF and thus continuing the revolution.

But let's be honest, you mean a very different sort of victory and outcome.

 

[Azrael]

What does hold power mean? hat he has 1/2 the country in established rebellion against him? What does this power consist of? He is killing more than ISIS at the rate of 100 to 1. And you're worried that the 1 killers might win? he's just killed a quarte of a million people under the slogan of assad or the country burns and you think he'll womble off with some money? Are there any subjects on which you're not dangerously and monstrously naive?

Butchers, I'm not suggesting that Asaad be asked nicely to leave, but that, if Russia can be gotten onside, he may (may) be coerced into some kind of deal. Unlike ISIS, ghastly as he is, he can at least be engaged with, if only to threaten him.

So Assad has half Syria in rebellion against him: will the numbers rebeling not decrease if they're offered a clear path to getting him gone? Maybe not, but it's at least a viable possibility.

Speak of which, what's yours? It's easy to condemn polices; a lot harder to defend them, despite acknowledging the evils that must be done. What would you have done?

 

[butchersapron]

If you suggest a settlement where assad remains then you know nothing about syria.

 

[Azrael]

Oh god. Here we go again

Given your ill-informed fantasy, here's mine (mine has the advantage of actually happening right now). The SDF continue it's attacks on the Islamists in north allepo and force themselves through to jarabulus where they meet the kobani canton and the ypg - pinning isis down to defending either the border area or raqqa. Either way raqqa is then attacked by the SDF moving south from tel abyad and west from hasakah whilst the NSA move north west from Deir ezzor. All this consolidating a widespread anti-assad and anti-isis coalition handing over power to local non-sectarian co-coordinating committees as they go (as they are already doing across north syria, defusing sectarian or tribal tensions as they go). Thus pulling the FSA brigades in central north syria firmly to the SDF and thus continuing the revolution.

But let's be honest, you mean a very different sort of victory and outcome.

Thank you, exactly what I asked for.

Do we have convincing evidence that the various Sunni militant groups are willing to submit to non-sectarian coordinating committees, with the SDF & FSA as their armed wing?

If so, how d'you propose to deal with those who won't submit, and above all, persuade Russia to support this new system?

 

[Azrael]

If you suggest a settlement where assad remains then you know nothing about syria.

I suggested cutting a deal with him that involves the bloodsoaked old monster going sooner rather than later. It's clearly not viable that the Ba'athists stay in power indefinitely.

 

[butchersapron]

Thank you, exactly what I asked for.

Do we have convincing evidence that the various Sunni militant groups are willing to submit to non-sectarian coordinating committees, with the SDF & FSA as their armed wing?

If so, how d'you propose to deal with those who won't submit, and above all, persuade Russia to support this new system?

The hardest places - the point where kurds meet arabs, meet assyrians meet people who were forcefully arabanized - this has already happened and is happening now.

And who is this overarching 'we' perspective that you're talking from - i'm pretty sure - given your earlier softness on assad and other things- is not that of the groups on the grounds. I mean you're already looking for an external state to decide that it's ok and then to agree police it. What on earth do you think has been going on on the ground for the last 4 years?

 

[butchersapron]

I suggested cutting a deal with him that involves the bloodsoaked old monster going sooner rather than later. It's clearly not viable that the Ba'athists stay in power indefinitely.

You suggest the regime is the only power and so needs supporting until ISIS is dealt with. They're driving ISIS.

 

[Azrael]

Daesh are driving themselves: not only are they a doomsday cult in thrall to Wahabbism at its most brutal, they've taken advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria to set themselves up as a brigand state, at war with all who don't share their savage interpretation of Islam (including, thanks to their scattergun takfir allegations, most of the world's Muslims).

As for perspective, of course I defer to perspectives from the ground, but its crucial that any solution is one that America, Russia, and France can agree on.

 

[butchersapron]

Daesh are driving themselves: not only are they a doomsday cult in thrall to Wahabbism at its most brutal, they've taken advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria to set themselves up as a brigand state, at war with all who don't share their savage interpretation of Islam (including, thanks to their scattergun takfir allegations, most of the world's Muslims).

As for perspective, of course I defer to perspectives from the ground, but its crucial that any solution is one that America, Russia, and France can agree on.

Even the most enthusiastic self-starter needs help and support. Ideas don't just whip themselves into reality.

And no, every shit outcome must be one that America, Russia, and France can agree on. The best outcome would be one that none of these wolves are happy about.

 

[Azrael]

Even the most enthusiastic self-starter needs help and support. Ideas don't just whip themselves into reality.

And no, every shit outcome must be one that America, Russia, and France can agree on. The best outcome would be one that none of these wolves are happy about.

In Daesh's case, they're responding to Salafist ideas whipped up back in the 18th century; the implosion of Syria and Iraq just provided an opportunity to seize territory, an essential prerequisite to declaring a Caliph.

As for the major powers, their governments' happiness is by-the-by: their agreement to any course of action is, however, essential, however reluctant that agreement may be.

 

[butchersapron]

In Daesh's case, they're responding to Salafist ideas whipped up back in the 18th century; the implosion of Syria and Iraq just provided an opportunity to seize territory, an essential prerequisite to declaring a Caliph.

As for the major powers, their governments' happiness is by-the-by: their agreement to any course of action is, however, essential, however reluctant that agreement may be.

No they're not.Those ideas have been around since the meeting of modernism and the old world. Syria and iraq didn't just implode ffs. (I love it when states with 60 million people just implode out of nowhere). They were a key part of that implosion - helped on the material side by the people who you think need to be part of the anti-ISIS deal.

I didn't mention the govts happiness. Their agreement is neither here nor there now. You don't have any clue what's going on.

 

[Azrael]

Butchers, no one claimed that Iraq and Syria spontaneously imploded: as you well know, Iraq imploded 'cause of the idiotic decision to invade and depose Saddam's regime; Syria, 'cause the Arab Spring slammed into the immovable object of Assad.

Of course Assad and his Ba'athist setup are major causes of this catastrophe, but we are where we are, and not only does he still have serious military potential, he has a powerful ally in Russia. If you can suggest a way to pry Russia away from the Assad dynasty -- an alliance that, as you know, stretches back to the Cold War -- your position strengthens, but so far, you haven't.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers, no one claimed that Iraq and Syria spontaneously imploded: as you well know, Iraq imploded 'cause of the idiotic decision to invade and depose Saddam's regime; Syria, 'cause the Arab Spring slammed into the immovable object of Assad.

Of course Assad and his Ba'athist setup are major causes of this catastrophe, but we are where we are, and not only does he still have serious military potential, he has a powerful ally in Russia. If you can suggest a way to pry Russia away from the Assad dynasty -- an alliance that, as you know, stretches back to the Cold War -- your position strengthens, but so far, you haven't.

I don't get any sense of 'we' in this from you other than the cameron sense. I'm not all interested in outcomes with that 'we' built into it. It's fantasy. Oh how best could a group of self-interested states come to a conclusion that benefits them all all. I wonder what's missing from this discussion?

 

[butchersapron]

but we are where we are,

No we are not.

 

[Azrael]

I don't get any sense of 'we' in this from you other than the cameron sense. I'm not all interested in outcomes with that 'we' built into it. It's fantasy. Oh how best could a group of self-interested states come to a conclusion that benefits them all all. I wonder what's missing from this discussion?

I'm not suggesting that you and I have common aims, although we do both want to see Assad and Daesh gone: "we are where we are" is simply a turn of phrase. Substitute "the situation is what it is" if you prefer.

Whatever you think should happen in Syria, it needs to confront the situation as-is, and if you think Assad shouldn't be negotiated with, that means explaining how you believe Russia can be persuaded to stop supporting a regime it's backed right out the gates.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not suggesting that you and I have common aims, although we do both want to see Assad and Daesh gone: "we are where we are" is simply a turn of phrase. Substitute "the situation is what it is" if you prefer.

Whatever you think should happen in Syria, it needs to confront the situation as-is, and if you think Assad shouldn't be negotiated with, that means explaining how you believe Russia can be persuaded to stop supporting a regime it's backed right out the gates.

No it doesn't.

Good this, you beat one cunt and another pops up.

What is this russia - obsession have you seen how little they have committed?

 

[Azrael]

I've been civil, but if you won't be, fuck it and good night.

 

[butchersapron]

I've been civil.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You know full well it was aired.

Anyway, do let me know if you find something about intel agencies not bothering any more to target prominent politicians who clearly going against "interests" of states/NATO etc. I'd be fascinated to read it.

That was a general - a single one, speaking off piste, and with no official support whatsoever. Hardly a fucking conspiracy.

 

[DotCommunist]

That was a general - a single one, speaking off piste, and with no official support whatsoever. Hardly a fucking conspiracy.

half pissed I'd say 'another jameson and I'll say something I shouldn't'

 

[ViolentPanda]

Straw men and insults don't cut it. The house of commons may be unimportant to you because you know everything and lecture what we should read and believe.

IF the House of Commons were a neutral venue in which legislators represented the opinions and interests of all the people they represent, I'd say "yes. The House of Commons is important".
As it is, it's not a neutral venue, and the legislators represent the opinions and interests only of themselves and people of similar ilk. Expecting any sort of representation or action from your MP or (if you're a member) your party is at best naive, and at worst ignorant. Parliament and what it does is not democratic, and never has been.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And your evidence for this claim is ...?

The fact that most legislation is carefully calculated to maximise available approval before it is placed in a bill. Do you think we'd have the occasional phenomenon of The Lords sending back legislation, if they were part of the formulation as opposed to the approval process?
Parliamentary debate as a motivator or swayer of MPs is pretty much dead except with regard to PMBs. I can't personally remember the last time an MP's testimony swayed the foreseen (and sought after) outcome of a debate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

anyway the quality of debate in the commons is pisspoor

Last halfway-interesting and engaging debate I can recall was about 2008/09, and was on ID cards/biometrics etc, and that was mostly interesting for the fact that people from all parties put forth some very cogent arguments against the idea.

 

[treelover]

<iframe src="https://embed.theguardian.com/embed...-byelection-corbymania-collides-reality-video" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If this video by John harris is correct, then it doesn't look good for Corbyn tomorrow in the Bye Election.

 

[Pickman's model]

<iframe src="Oldham byelection: Corbynmania collides with reality – video" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

what's the point you wish to make?

 

[emanymton]

what's the point you wish to make?

Probably something about the SWP.

 

[Azrael]

ViolentPanda, if you believe the Commons to be undemocratic, what would you replace it with? Legislatures elected under proportional systems, where legislators' place on a party list hinges on loyalty, ain't models of independence.

As for the effectiveness of debates, of course bills are drafted to maximize success, including bills, like the right to die bill, that fail. It says nothing either way about how effective debates are. They might be wholly ineffective, but that's not been shown, just asserted.

 

[nino_savatte]

FFS.

 

[Azrael]

Pretty much my feelings.

OK, accepting the ineffectiveness of Commons' debates arguendo, how should the British legislature be reformed to improve matters?