Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

'stop looking at previous wars and trying to learn lessons from them'

gonna have to stop tweeting Labour MPs if they're onto me

I wonder if one "blowback" would be an increased number of refugees as this country slides deeper into the conflict and the government having to increase the number allowed in? Probably not as UK involvement is so small.

Yvette's “We should be ready to review and ready to withdraw” is just the anaemic stance she showed on anything throughout her leadership campaign -- so glad Corbyn is leader. If she had been elected I guess her stance would be in a minority with the rest of the PLP or would most of them follow their leader?

She (Gisela Stuart) says that she will be supporting the motion "because it is good enough"

Aye, fuck it, it'll do, when do we get started?

gotta nuke something

STOP GOING ON ABOUT THREATS

US Senator John McCain has said British involvement in coalition air strikes against so-called IS in Syria will be of limited value. He told the BBC's Washington correspondent Jon Sopel it was good to have allies on board, "and then we can go to Geneva and say we are 30 nations, or 50 nations".

"Then we will have some token aircraft over there from the British and they'll drop a few bombs, and we'll say thank you very much. The president will be able to say 'now we have the British who will be helping us', and that's good."

He said he wasn't saying that UK air strikes would achieve nothing, but added:

"Air strikes alone won't win a conflict but it's good to have increased air strikes, it's good to have increased air activities, it's good to have shows of support from our British friends... So I'm glad of it, thank you, we appreciate it! But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."

Yay for Britain! And the other 49 nations!

That's one very special relationship we have going on there! Yay! I feel so proud!

Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, said she was pleased that her inbox has been full of messages from people telling her not to vote in favour of airstrikes. “I would be deeply troubled if my email inbox was full of people gung-ho saying ‘go and get them,” she said, but she will vote in favour of airstrikes.

I keep seeing new contenders for quote of the day but this takes some beating, in context.

Lib Dems leader says we must tackle 'evil death cult'

... and once we've dealt with this Corbyn led Labour Party we will go after Daesh.

Alan Johnson attacks 'self-righteous finger-jabbing' activists

Ex-Labour minister not happy with tactics of new leader's supporters

In case anyone thinks they've forgotten the really important issues.

This debate is the gift that keeps giving tbh.

very unreasonable of constituents to tell their MPs how they want them to vote

this thing sounds like the Parliamentary equivalent of a show trial

Following from that, wrt threats of deselection - if your MP keeps undermining not only the elected leadership, but activists and the majority of constituency members wishes w/these kinds of piss-poor arguments why should these same councillors and activists campaign on your behalf at election time?

Deselection isn't on the table anyway according to Corbyn, but even if it were I don't think the contents of an email inbox is exactly a representative sample.

Waiting for someone to say that they had a very strong vision that Jesus came down to them and warned them against voting for airstrikes, but they will be voting for airstrikes anyway.

the entitlement is staggering, but you have to ask who let these buffoons in in the first place?

The Labour peer (Baroness Smith) adds that "many MPs with the same information" will come to different conclusions, and condemns "those who abuse, intimidate or threaten them".

Not sure how much more of this boohooing I can stand.

it's unreal! they are talking about dropping bombs on an actual city as being a great and brave kindness, whereas an email saying 'youll have blood on your hands' or whatever is outrageous intimidation

Andrew Murrison argues this is not 2003

it is such classic rhetorical bullshit to start making this some kind of philosophical "we'll never know the true course here, every man and woman must follow their heart, far be it from me to tell anyone what we should do but btw i am voting for bombs"

"history will judge us more harshly if we don't bomb them and nothing changes"

Well we don't actually know what these people have actually received - I'm guessing "you'll have blood on your hands" would be at the mildest end of the spectrum, the final solution one is definitely beyond the pale. And given everything we know about online behaviour it's likely that there are a few rape and death threats in there. Nothing compared to being literally blown up by bombs from your brave liberators, obviously.

"I am literally from the future and I have seen the devastating consequences with my own eyes... but I will be voting for airstrikes anyway".

death threats backed by actual planes with actual bombs feel worse than the Twitter kind somehow

presumably the RAF pilots will be doffing their helmets and shouting "sorry" to their targets

I apologize to anyone I may have caused offence to by blowing their child's head off.

I mean if they've had really gross threats then yeah that should probably be what they should use their 5 minutes to highlight. Online death threats are several million magnitudes less serious than bombing people's homes, their hubris in deciding that they have to stand up and make a point about the former before they address the latter is appalling.

I mean if they've had really gross threats then yeah that should probably be what they should use their 5 minutes to highlight.

Phone the police, or what's left of them.

'IVE FELT THE THREATS WITH MY OWN HANDS'

LOL @ this "follow your conscience" business. Yes you are responsible for casting the vote but actually you look at what has been presented, listen to different constitutent and member views and arrive at an informed decision.

As an MP you are taking life and death decisions (tax credits or going to war) - if you are not expecting aggravation, to say the least, then you need to take another job.

need a Respect agenda for our beleaguered public servants

Anyway, well done to Alan Johnson et al for getting Cameron off the hook (and off the front pages) with his "terrorist sympathizers" comment and persistent refusal to apologize for it.

The opening of the debate may have been uninspiring (see 1.20pm) but in the last two hours or more it has picked up because the backbench contributions have generally been impressive. If you are looking for the highlights, here are five of the best.

1) Tim Farron. In a debate that has involved a lot of dry discussion about strategy and the composition of opposition forces in Syria, Farron’s speech stood out because it was unashamedly emotional and passionate.

No thanks.

Crossbench peer and former Army chief Lord Dannatt calls for "constructive dialogue" with Russia, Iran, Turkey and others to develop a common position on Syria. He also claims that Syrians to not want to see their government overthrown completely, adding that "we need to work with the Syrian armed forces" against the so-called Islamic State group.

This is what we're moving towards, leaving the barrel-bombin' nerve-gassin' Syrian government (with or without Assad the Opthalmologist) in place, more or less intact.

Conservative Johnny Mercer says "we are in danger of almost overcomplicating" the issue before the House.

Somehow I doubt that.

particularly since Johnny's "solution" is "bomb the bastards"

HERE'S JOHNNY

I fee very strongly about national security. I’ve seen the threats that we face with my own eyes and I’ve felt them with my own hands. We have a privileged way of life in this country, a free democracy and a free speech society and a healthy economy... We are chiefly blessed because over the generations we’ve had men and women who believe so much in this nation that they’ve taken difficult political decisions and some have even taken up arms and sacrificed everything to protect this way of life. Mr Speaker, I’ve become worried of late that we’ve lost some of that spirit.

what does he mean when he says he's "felt the threats" with his own hands

More speaking out against abuse from all-action man Dan Jarvis:

Let us be very clear, there is principle in opposing military action, just like there is principle in supporting it. Everyone must have the freedom, either in this place or outside, to say what they believe to be right without the fear of recrimination

the pro-bombers are starting to sound relativist in the worst possible way.

Britain didn't become Great by being afraid to kill a few brown people thousands of miles away.

Mr Speaker, I’ve become worried of late that we’ve lost some of that spirit.

we can get it back by dropping exploding pieces of metal on syria and murdering all who are near the place where they fall

Miliband voting no, as are Blairites Ivan Lewis and Barry Sheerman, presumably at least partly because they remember what actually happened to Blair.

man some of yr politicians are really dumb

what time do u guys vote for war?

I like my blood pressure at its current level, thanks, so I'm just following this and the graun blog, but is there a correlation between those mentioning 'conscience' and a yes vote?

How many of the people sending in 'abuse' are actually Corbyn supporters, instead of the usual comments trolls and socks from other parties?

'pinned in our forces, pinned down our forces, pinned back our forces'

'angry intolerant pacifism'

sorry to all in barrow-in-furness that this absolute garbage is the best you've got

so vast is the ocean of stupid comments in westminster today it stands to reason one of them would be about israel

Coming back to the issue of fear, I think we must have the courage to do what we think is right, irrespective of the inevitable backlash. I have faced physical threats over how I might vote on this issue. Those threats are unacceptable and do not shape my position or decision. Quite the opposite.

Is Neil Coyle saying (incoherently) that he is voting to bomb Syria out of spite for twitter trolls?

That is not what he his saying, though it's not clear if that's clear to him.

Those threats are unacceptable and do not shape my position or decision. Quite the opposite.

If they do not influence him in any way, why the fuck is he spending parliamentary time talking about it?