Turkey has shot down a Russian jet

[Pantone363]

Apparently it violated their air space and ignored repeated warnings.

Rumours that his son's oil was bombed by Russia?

Excellent article in today's Daily Mail on Erdogan. Goes through the history and motives of Erdogan. Discusses truning a bline eye to Isis and oil trade with them, why he neutralised the army in the Ergenekon trials, mentions the Gulen movement, discusses his main worry of the Kurds rather than Isis, growing support for Isis within youth sections of his party etc

"Double dealing tyrant who's sabotaging the West's battle to crush ISIS: Turkey's Erdogan seems to be doing almost everything he can to cripple the forces actually fighting ISIS"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335819/Double-dealing-tyrant-s-sabotaging-West-s-battle-crush-ISIS-Turkey-s-Erdogan-doing-cripple-forces-actually-fighting-ISIS-writes-MICHAEL-BURLEIGH.html

"Putin thought Assad wasn't great but at least he would keep a lid on any extremist movement that would adversely effect other countries, like Russia."

No. Putin wants to keep his naval base in Lattakia, on the Syrian coast. That's it.

Putin's actions in Ukraine are a clear indicator that he's not bothered about stirring up extremism.

"Assad won the election a few years ago, including in the refugee camps. Assad thinks he will win the election, but if he loses he has said he will step down because his position is that it is up to the Syrian people to decide who leads them in elections rather than the West saying that Assad must go."

Ha! Firstly, the recent elections were an utter sham and many who did vote for him, even those in the camps and elsewhere, did so out of fear of what might happen to their loved ones left behind in Syria.

time.com/38696/syria-assad-elections-war/

'Firstly, the recent elections were an utter sham'

You are right, that is what we are told. Assad says they were real. Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister, is now talking about elections as part of the political solution and he says that if the elections are fair then obviously Assad will lose. Assa dhas been interviewed on US TV saying he wants elections. They will need independent, fair monitoring. Fabius is certain that Assad will lose and Assad wants elections because he thinks he will win. We will have to wait and see. if he loses, then he says he will step down.

Very good interview on today's The Sunday Politics with George Galloway. I don't like Galloway, but he is right on many issues and he spells out 70% of what this is really all about in this interview. No one else gets near the full truth and it is a credit to the BBC to have allowed Galloway on when the drums for war are beating.

Slightly off-topic (as fas as the OP goes) but I was thinking about the Syria vote.

We all know that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want Syria bombed by the UK (maybe not by any country at all?). Also David Cameron has said that he will only call a Syria vote once he knows that it will pass easily, which means that a significant number of labour MPS will have to say up front that they will vote for it.

I was wondering why Jeremy Corbyn doesn't simply avoid making a decision on whether he's going to whip his party on the vote or not? If he doesn't say whether he is going to whip the vote, then the labour MPS won't be prompted to decide whether to rebel or not, and David Cameron will never get to find out whether he can count on their vote. The vote will get delayed and before you know it, it will be the parliamentary Christmas holidays.

That's what I'd do if I was JC because the minute he says what he is going to do, the control is out of his hands. His parliamentary party will not like it, but so what? They don't like much that he does anyway, but they know they can't get rid of him, so nothing would change there.

So over the weekend the EU agreed to pay Turkey $3 billion to 'solve' the refugee crisis.

I don't believe for a moment that will be used for the benefit of refugees. It was effectively the money that Turkey would have got as a net transfer if it had been a member of the EU. Politically Germany and France don't want Turkey in the EU as the refugee flood would be unstoppable. Instead a $3 billion 'Danegeld' payment was and it wont be the last.

I am sure that the UN could have used $3 billion to set up excellent refugee facilities on the border with Turkey protected by peacekeepers.

I also note in separate news increasing discussion of the Balkans being slowly dragged into this war over gas and oil pipeline transit routes.

This is really mapping out like the start of WWI.

Turkey seem to be doing quite well out of this, what with facilitating the selling of ISIS controlled oil (if news reports are accurate on this)

var123, Cameron knows that he has got enough votes already. The Blairites, Shadow Cabinet, Parliamentary Labour Party are mainly in opposition to Corbyn. If Corbyn goes for a free vote, as weak John McDonnell keeps saying on TV that he should, then Cameron will win the vote which is why the Daily Mirror headline is "It's war".

But, the Telegraph is saying that Corbyn will whip the vote. That would be astounding because so far Corbyn has been extremely weak with his "kinder" "new politics", but if he whips the vote, some of the opponents of Corbyn will likely bottle it and vote with Corbyn because of their future career prospects etc as they want to climb the greasy pole. In that case, Cameron can't be certain how many votes he will get and may even possibly not call the vote.

From everything we know about Corbyn, most people would bet that in his weakness he will make it a free vote, but I have a feeling Corbyn is going to stand up and go for it and whip the vote.

'His parliamentary party will not like it, but so what? They don't like much that he does anyway, but they know they can't get rid of him, so nothing would change there.'

There is serious talk about the plotters, the Blairites etc going all out for a coup on this issue. It could come as soon as Thursday if Labour lose the Oldham by-election to UKIP. They want Corbyn out. The questio is has Corbyn got the guts to face them dowm, whip the vote and take them on?

'I was wondering why Jeremy Corbyn doesn't simply avoid making a decision on whether he's going to whip his party on the vote or not?'

He has to make a decision one way or the other because he is the leader of a major political party and this is an issue of war. He can't avoid it.

If its a free vote, Corbyn will lose.

If its a whipped vote, Corbyn might win but then again he might lose and suffer a humiliating rebellion.

Or alternatively, he could simply avoid deciding whether to whip or not (if he can get away with it). The labour MPS couldn't despise his leadership any more anyway.

Since when has Corbyn ever done anything because he had to? 3 line whips meant nothing to him.

'Since when has Corbyn ever done anything because he had to? 3 line whips meant nothing to him.'

And rightly so. But doing nothing is effectively allowing the labour shower to do what they want which is effectively a free vote anyway and if he hasn't even got the gumption to make a decision then there will definitely be a coup, supported by the media, anyway.

But a free vote can only happen when there is a vote. Cameron said he wouldn't call a vote unless he knows for sure that he will win. So, imagine this call between the Tory Chief Whip and A N Other Labour MP?

Tory: Are you in favour of bombing Syria?
Labour: On a personal basis, yes. As a Labour MP: I don't know.
Tory: So if there is a free vote, we can count on your vote?
Labour: Yes.
Tory: And if there is a whipped vote?
Labour: I am not prepared to say until I know if there will be a whipped vote.
Tory: When will you know?
Labour: When JC tells us.
Tory: When will that be?
Labour: I don't know.
Tory: So, we can't 100% count on you?
Labour: Not yet. Sorry.

The David Cameron to his chief whip:

DC: I'll call this vote if I can be assured of a comfortable win. Its important that it appears that I have the overwhelming backing of Parliament. Do I have that backing?
Whip: You have it on a personal basis, but you won't have a guaranteed win until JC says whether he'll whip or not.
DC: How many do you think I'll get if he does whip?
Whip: Quite a few, but no one is willing to commit to a rebellion until they know they have to.
DC: So, will I win by a big majority or not?
Whip: Maybe, but maybe not. We won't know until JC says whether he will allow a free vote.

Then JC solilquising to himself.

JC: If I can hold out for another 2 weeks, it will be too late to call a Syria vote this year. The earliest will be in mid-January and the whole world might look different by then.

Yes, I see your point, good point, Corbyn can maybe string it out by not declaring what he will do until the last 10 minutes before the vote in which case Cameron and the Tory whips could not risk the vote.

Corbyn does not have exclusive rights to a conscience. He was OK with defying the whip when he believed it was the right thing to do. He must realise that others could to do exactly the same, and it's as OK for them as it was for him.

Will this be dragged out until after the Oldham bye-election?

'Corbyn does not have exclusive rights to a conscience'

He seems to be nearly the only one who has got one. He had the courage to defy the whip and sacrifice climbing the greasy pole to further his career, let the rest of the Labour shower of career toadies have as much principle as Corbyn and defy the whip and resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Let them put their conscience in wanting to bomb above their career.

Andy Burnham is a bit of a bell-weather. Always jumping onto whatever he thinks is about to be popular. (Like Brian Friedman on I'm a Celeb). So, when he gives an opinion, it will likely be a good indication of the way the wind is blowing.

I don't think JC is the only one with a conscience. He stands out as the one whose personal pride is more important to him than anything else, including his party. Its quite narcissistic when you think about it!

Pragmatism and compromise are not his middle names.

I am beginning to like Andy Burnham. He has not been on TV stabbing Corbyn in the back with a smile on his face like so many of the others. I agree, it will be interesting to see what he says. This is a massive day. If Corbyn has the courage to whip the vote, it will be momentous and show that he has leadership qualities and resolve. If he bottles it like McDonnell, then I think he will just be a laughing stock and will be toppled.

'Pragmatism and compromise are not his middle names.'

True, but conscience and principle are. We will have to see which of all of those will win out.

"He has not been on TV stabbing Corbyn in the back with a smile on his face like so many of the others."

Well no, of course he hasn't. At the moment, JC is popular with the activitists, so its better to keep quiet.

If JC is too principled, then AC has none whatsoever.

Typo: AB not AC!