There is a lot of press chatter at the moment about just how awful a leader Jeremy Corbyn is for the Labour Party and how his own party don't back his stance on Iraq. They say that he is unfit to be leader of the Labour Party because his own MP's don't agree with his stance that he thinks bombing won't solve anything. What I find truly amazing (or maybe not given who controls the press) is that none of them are saying the same thing about David Cameron. Unlike Corbyn, Cameron was selected by a majority of his MP's and unlike Corbyn he has an absolute majority in the House of Commons. if his own party was united, we'd already be bombing Syria, but Cameron can't even be sure of a majority if , as expected a large number of Labour MP's rebel against the Corbyn line. Why is no one talking about splits and divisions in the Conservative Party?
The other thing we hear nothing of is why Camerons own MP's refuse to back him. Whatever you may or may not think of Conservative MP's the reason is quite simple. There are too many of them that are too well educated and intelligent to support an action that history tells us is doomed to fail and will simply make matters worse. If bombing a city full of fanatics to rubble made them change their minds, the second world war would have finished a year earlier. In 1944 it was clear to every German citizen that the RAF and the USAF could bomb German cities with virtual impunity. It was also clear to them that the allies were advancing in both the east and the west. Did they give up? Did the British give up when the Germans blitzed London? In Syria we are not talking about people with our values. We are talking about religious fundamentalists who believe that if they are killed in an act of war they will go to paradise. They are not afraid of our bombers, in fact they use them as a propoganda weapon, to recruit more jihadis. Cameron argues that the bombing disrupts their ability to plan terrorist atrocities against the West. This is the biggest load of old cobblers of all. The Paris attacks were planned in Paris and Belgium. The attackers did not have sophisticated weapons supplied from Syria at great expense. They had AK47's bought on the local black market and suicide vests presumably knocked up in the kithcens of Brussels. Unlike the 9/11 attacks ISIS do not have a well known leader such as Bin Laden to inspire them. They have a whole ragbag of different local chiefs, none of whom we have ever heard of.
Cameron is clearly a leader who lacks authority. His own party know his days as leader are numbered. Already with the tax credit fiasco his regimes authority is in tatters. His loyal sidekick Geoerge Osborne has just performed the biggest U turn for decades, abandoning his plans for changes to tax credits, in face of open revolt in his own party. A mere six months ago Osborne looked like the heir apparent, now he looks like the unwanted pubic hair of a B grade porn star, awaiting the razor to usher in the next Braszilian trim. I find it incredible that with such a completely shambolic government, the Labour Party is completely unable to mount any sort of proper opposition. Labour MP's are too busy trying to shaft their own democratically elected leadership, to bother with the day job of being her majesties loyal opposition. As George Osborne announced U turn after U turn, completely destroying the principles on which he based his re election in May, the abour Party simply forgot about him and indulged in an unseemly political punch up amongst themselves. In football terms it was as if a striker had an open goal, but instead of banging the ball into the net, he ran back and punched the captain and said "Look how clever I am, I could have scored a goal". In short they are doing the work of the Murdoch press for them.
It seems to me that at the moment, the only sensible opposition is from the Tories themselves. A sizeable group of Tory MP's have recognised that Cameron has no plan for Syria. He simply wants to bomb Syria so he can't be accused of doing nothing. No one in the West has managed to formulate a coherant response to the threat of ISIS or other forms of radical Islam. There is a very good reason for this. There is an old FBI adage on how you deal with difficult problems They used it to defeat Al Capone and his gangster friends in Chicago in the 1930's. It is quite simple. "Follow the Money". Every terrorist organisation, large or small, needs significant funding to survive. The IRA was bankrolled for decades by wealthy Americans. These islamic fundamentalists are bankrolled by Arab Oil money, largely from Saudi Arabia. ISIS also control oilfields and refineries in their territories and sell oil on the black market. If we were serious about stopping ISIS, we'd go after the men who supply the money which means that this ragbag army. But we don't, do we? Why not? Because it's good for business. Whilst the middle east is in flames, the men who make and sell weapons are minting it. If you want to make a few quid, invest in the companies that make drones and smartbombs. All of the squillions of $$$'s spent on these since 9/11. Do you feel any safer for it?
9/11 happened fifteen years ago. In fifteen years, our leaders, first Blair and Bush, now Cameron and Obama have not managed a coherent plan. There is no strategy for dealing with Islamic Fundamental terrorism. Don't you think that is rather odd. Don't you think that by now, with all of the death and destruction, someone would have said "we need a strategy to combat these ideologies and we need to persuade the angry young men that violence isn't the way". Does anyone really believe that you can persuade a violent fanatic, hell bent on death and destruction that he is wrong by unleashing death and destruction on him and his family?
Cameron wants to ask the house of commons "Do I have the authority of the house to authorise British forces to bomb Syria?". Cameron is a weak leader, who for reasons I cannot fathom, no one seems to have realised is past his sell by date. The question he should be asking the house is a far more simple question to answer. That question is "Which way is the door". What the country needs is a Prime Minister who actually has a plan. Cameron has no plan for dealing with terrorists and as George Osborne explained to us on Wednesday, his plan for the economy is in tatters. Dave may be a lovely bloke, but his time is up. If he was to bale out now, I think he'd actually have a decent legacy for leading the coalition and shoring up the finances of UK PLC. His time is up now and we need a new Prime Minister.
Hugh Rayner
norman goldner
Keith Meachem
Mr Mustard-Blogger
Ros Kerslake
Mark Amies
Brent&Kilburn Times
Andrew Evans
Sam Wilson
MillHillMusicComplex
Brian Coleman