PDA

View Full Version : The main cause of Corbyn's headache



tonkatojo
27-Nov-15, 16:15
When it is presented as follows no wonder the man looks ill, trying to figure it out.








President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some (who are still good) continued to support democracy.

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria .

So President Putin (who is bad, coz he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack ISIS (who are bad which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good /bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to ISIS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than ISIS (but letís face it, drinking your own wee is better than ISIS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting ISIS that may now make them Good.

America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join ISIS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of ISIS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihads fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see ISIS as Good (Doh!)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm ... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to ISIS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

Hope this clears things up! for you Mr Corbyn.


https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKaTPzGJrraOK4cpVByKN-6WVhhmz687mC46XtmDGXDRflgwNnFd5viV-koTfQ4lAqp1h3XtjC3MTD6ony9-Vgk3updQBJ2GgPRULkF6FD94ug7w=s0-d-e1-ft#http://ts.msgtag.net/ber/pCkhim/dtpkvc/eyBuqfz/uzhu/pbnnfn.gif

rob murray
27-Nov-15, 16:29
When it is presented as follows no wonder the man looks ill, trying to figure it out.








President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some (who are still good) continued to support democracy.

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria .

So President Putin (who is bad, coz he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack ISIS (who are bad which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good /bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to ISIS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than ISIS (but letís face it, drinking your own wee is better than ISIS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting ISIS that may now make them Good.

America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join ISIS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of ISIS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihads fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see ISIS as Good (Doh!)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm ... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to ISIS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

Hope this clears things up! for you Mr Corbyn.


https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/XKaTPzGJrraOK4cpVByKN-6WVhhmz687mC46XtmDGXDRflgwNnFd5viV-koTfQ4lAqp1h3XtjC3MTD6ony9-Vgk3updQBJ2GgPRULkF6FD94ug7w=s0-d-e1-ft#http://ts.msgtag.net/ber/pCkhim/dtpkvc/eyBuqfz/uzhu/pbnnfn.gif










Brilliant stuff !! Dunno about Corbyn but my heids mince reading it, great stuff though

BetterTogether
27-Nov-15, 16:38
Great Post gave me a chuckle well done writing so amusingly and eloquently

tonkatojo
27-Nov-15, 16:51
Great Post gave me a chuckle well done writing so amusingly and eloquently

I am too honest to claim personally writing it but I did edit a wee bit of it. lol

rob murray
27-Nov-15, 16:56
I am too honest to claim personally writing it but I did edit a wee bit of it. lol

No harm in creative" editing" I o it all the time, reads great though, keep them comming, a very welcome contribution

moureen
27-Nov-15, 17:10
Great post!!thank you tonkatojo now I know who is good and who is bad..... I think!!!!

bekisman
30-Nov-15, 11:33
Think that was author Daniel Gordis, (Facebook 17th November) but certainly gives a (big) thumbnail sketch on the convoluted situation, wonder what Corbyn will be doing today at his cabinet meeting?

rob murray
30-Nov-15, 11:38
Think that was author Daniel Gordis, (Facebook 17th November) but certainly gives a (big) thumbnail sketch on the convoluted situation, wonder what Corbyn will be doing today at his cabinet meeting?

My take on its it is : He has to face the situation head on, either whip MP's ( and comming from someone who defied the Labour whip over 500 times that would be the ultimate hyprocy ) or allow a free vote, if he whips then thats Labour finished under him, despite there being any gap between popular membership opinion and the Labour PPP, whipping will see a shadow cabinet split a potential coup on Corbyn ( at best )

bekisman
30-Nov-15, 13:49
My take on its it is : He has to face the situation head on, either whip MP's ( and comming from someone who defied the Labour whip over 500 times that would be the ultimate hyprocy ) or allow a free vote, if he whips then thats Labour finished under him, despite there being any gap between popular membership opinion and the Labour PPP, whipping will see a shadow cabinet split a potential coup on Corbyn ( at best )

Me thinks he will say he's had x number of emails from Party Members (will that include the 1,800 Greens who with their three quid? and will only be from activists as they always scream - whereas the silent majority will not bother) anyway "look shadow cabinet this is what Labour Party members want, you should listen to them.. deselection could loom etc, so vote with your conscience " IF he uses the whip, he's finished. BUT we shall see, as you say he has rebelled over 500 times against the Leader but hey he's thinks a wee bit different from most!

bekisman
30-Nov-15, 14:02
Stop Press news coming in "75% of Labour Party Members are apposed to strikes" Hmm so he had 277,993 replies saying this? (well that's 75% ain't it)

squidge
30-Nov-15, 15:29
If he allows a free vote then labour may very well be finished at the ballot box. If he uses the whip the PLP will create holy hell. However he is the leader. He was overwhelmingly elected on an anti war anti nuclear stance so I say whip the MPs and take the flack. He probably won't though

rob murray
30-Nov-15, 15:59
If he allows a free vote then labour may very well be finished at the ballot box. If he uses the whip the PLP will create holy hell. However he is the leader. He was overwhelmingly elected on an anti war anti nuclear stance so I say whip the MPs and take the flack. He probably won't though

A life long problem with Labour is the "drift" / gap between the membership and PLP, I cannot see any compromise here, even though he is the leader, voted in with a huge support, a free vote can be seen as betraying the members wishes as the vote will go with government, whip and I agree all hell breaks out with a coup no doubt. As some one put it on Andrew Neils show yesterday with this situation its back to Ramsay Mcdonald and 1931 again. Corbyn may suprise us he may whip, for all the good it will do anyway as key players will vote for what they want and call Corbyns bluff. So he is in a lose lose scenario and in my view played this all wrong, ie e mailing members over heads of cabinent ??

rob murray
30-Nov-15, 16:32
Seems its to be a free vote afterall but the Labour leader is expected to want his party to take a position of opposition to military action.....meaning what ...airstikes but nothing more ? STill early yet though

bekisman
30-Nov-15, 16:36
If he allows a free vote then labour may very well be finished at the ballot box. If he uses the whip the PLP will create holy hell. However he is the leader. He was overwhelmingly elected on an anti war anti nuclear stance so I say whip the MPs and take the flack. He probably won't though


I think you might be right Squidge that Corbyn 'may very well be finished at the ballot box' (if free vote) but if he uses the Whip, same result? my money for next leader would be Hilary Benn, unlike his father he's a 'political centrist' - he's also a teetotaler and veggie, which gets a lot of support from the fringe.
I'll watch that space...

rob murray
30-Nov-15, 16:49
I think you might be right Squidge that Corbyn 'may very well be finished at the ballot box' (if free vote) but if he uses the Whip, same result? my money for next leader would be Hilary Benn, unlike his father he's a 'political centrist' - he's also a teetotaler and veggie, which gets a lot of support from the fringe.
I'll watch that space...


His name has been mentioned !

bekisman
30-Nov-15, 21:18
Can you help Tonkatojo, any chance of explaining what's going on with Labour at the moment, Jeremy says no?, and wants the PLP to agree with him? and at the same time gives them a free vote? eh?

Alrock
30-Nov-15, 23:32
Can you help Tonkatojo, any chance of explaining what's going on with Labour at the moment, Jeremy says no?, and wants the PLP to agree with him? and at the same time gives them a free vote? eh?


What's the problem?
Nothing wrong with wanting people to agree with you as long as you can accept that they wont agree with you on everything.

As for giving them a free vote... Good on him, MPs are elected to represent their constituents not to be lap dogs to the leader so their vote should be based on a combination of their constituents opinions & their own conscience. If the constituents don't like the way their elected MP votes then they can always replace them at the ballot box.

There should be no such things as Whips, after all, we do (supposedly) have a parlimentary democracy, not a dictatorship where the leader must be obeyed.... or else....



"only fools accept 'so called' facts without question"

bekisman
01-Dec-15, 08:01
What's the problem?
Nothing wrong with wanting people to agree with you as long as you can accept that they wont agree with you on everything.

As for giving them a free vote... Good on him, MPs are elected to represent their constituents not to be lap dogs to the leader so their vote should be based on a combination of their constituents opinions & their own conscience. If the constituents don't like the way their elected MP votes then they can always replace them at the ballot box.

There should be no such things as Whips, after all, we do (supposedly) have a parlimentary democracy, not a dictatorship where the leader must be obeyed.... or else....



"only fools accept 'so called' facts without question"



This was posted as a light-hearted joke, I'm fully aware of what politics mean, but presumably the persiflage was not perceived.. never mind

tonkatojo
01-Dec-15, 10:54
Can you help Tonkatojo, any chance of explaining what's going on with Labour at the moment, Jeremy says no?, and wants the PLP to agree with him? and at the same time gives them a free vote? eh?

I think it's a little thing called "democracy" working correctly without the usual dictator interference, but me being honest this answer is a cop out. lol.

bekisman
01-Dec-15, 11:53
I think it's a little thing called "democracy" working correctly without the usual dictator interference, but me being honest this answer is a cop out. lol.


Thanks for that Tonkatojo yep, had the same thoughts meself!