Quincel. UKIP are disliked because of its racism. However, in that they differ little from the Tory right. I would also have to say that 40% will not elect the Tories. I cannot see Labour falling to less than 36% and are likely to poll around 38-9%. If that was so the Tories would have to poll 45% or more to get an overall majority. Given that UKIP will almost certainly poll more than the 3.17% that they got last time. then the Tory task is impossible. These figures can be checked on Electoral Calculous.
You need to go beyond Electoral calculus and your rather large dose of wishful thinking to get a more realistic picture of what may happen in 2015.
Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.
To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.
A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?
Absolute filth
Fair enough. Just don't expect to pick up too many floating voters/ might just consider voting for you if you're nice to me types.
Things are still relatively ok for most people who turn out to vote, so appearing as nice probably adds on a fair few percentage points. When things start to get worse economically then that all goes out the window.
Labour got in with a landslide in 1997 by painting the Tories as nasty and being the nice guy alternative. It worked because the economy was doing well.
The Tories were hopelessly split over Europe.
Public services were creaking.
VAT had been raised despite promises that it would not be.
We'd had the whole ERM fiasco.
We'd had moral and political Tory sleaze in Westminster Council and in Parliament.
We'd had Peter Liley's charming little list and the uproarious applause it attracted at the Tory conference.
The economy was recovering, it is true; but only because Tory policies had buggered it up in the first place.
In short, the Tories did plenty to ensure people felt the way they did about them in 1997. They deserved what they got. The same thing happened to Labour in 2010, except the Tories were not able to capitalise in the way that Blair did in 1997. In part, at least, for reasons not unconnected with the chart in Mike's intro.
People had forgotten / never knew how bad things were in the 70s, and others believed Labour had learned its lesson.
Cameron's justification for wading in appeared to be "it stands to reason that Assad did it", and "trust me, I've seen the intelligence". Now where have we heard that before?
Is Dave going to stand up on Thursday and tell us we could be toast in 45 minutes?
And what of the "illegal war" brigade (yes Nick, that means you). What we're about to do appears to be completely illegal.
Surely the story from this poll is that however far Cameron is prepared to make his party appear 'nice' the public just don't buy it. After years of working for some of the world largest advertisers I know when a dead horse is being flogged. The Tories ONLY chance to detoxify their brand is to change their name.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
Russia has sent a plane to gets it people out and leave some supplies. It'll be interesting to see if others follow. The Russian forward planning location in Beirut certainly has been busy.
Since yesterday Syrian military & other security personnel have been shifting.
The first flight in a short while from Latakia to Beirut flew yesterday.
US officials say Thursday for a 3 day operation. The time for ops sounds about right based on heavy but limited scope strikes battle damage assessment and pause but the announcement of Thursday is either designed to let anyone who wants to get their people out to do so but appears militarily to be the equivalent of saying we are going to land in Normandy not at the shortest point across the Channel. With the Americans to some extent it wont matter they'll pound the crap out of things anyway and some targets are very much fixed and they also do have good intelligence, much of it no doubt supplied by the Israelis who physical site and electronically know pretty much every inch of Syria.
The questions are:
If it is Thursday what will Assad do with his chemical stocks if he fears they will be hit, move them..or leave them?
Is it wise to attempt a pre-emption, not just to climb in the bunkers but also to get their retaliation in first?
What will actually be hit?
If the direct campaign is short and it really should be unless they miss the targets, will the real significant punishment be the enhanced support for insurgents out of Jordan that has been hotting up in recent weeks?
Thursday gives time for someone to blink and maybe this has been deliberate. Telling someone a hammer will fall then delivering it is much much worse There is some fear in Damascus and some members of the Assad system are perhaps wondering if its time to jump. The US for some time was trying to find people in his inner circle willing to parlay and launch a coup. Initially they found none but maybe a few will be changing their minds now. The US certainly hopes so.
Finally will it really be Thursday? I'd not stake money on it. If I had to, I'd say sooner.
Who the hell is Godfrey Bloom? We've got all three major political parties who have had MPs slung in jail for various crimes and yet UKIP are far worse because some bloke you've never heard of said something that's politically incorrect.
He's an MEP who made some offensive comments and is getting criticised for them. What's wrong with that?
There's very few strong political opinions that someone won't find offensive.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's so achingly PC and right-on. I even checked the US Embassy tweet account to make sure it wasn't a pee-take.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It was - when MLK did it. I think you missed the point.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It was - when MLK did it. i think you missed the point.
I'm sure there was a good reason they didnt invite him along to the tribute show.
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
There is little doubt that any action taken will be fairly unpopular in the UK - so I find it hard to question Cameron's motive as anything but a desire to do the right thing. He may be entirely wrong to think a military response is needed but there is clearly nothing politically in it for him.
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It was - when MLK did it. i think you missed the point.
I'm sure there was a good reason they didnt invite him along to the tribute show.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It was - when MLK did it. I think you missed the point.
Quite. Next it will be JFK's best by Eddie Izzard, Rabbi Sacks and Brian May.
There is little doubt that any action taken will be fairly unpopular in the UK - so I find it hard to question Cameron's motive as anything but a desire to do the right thing. He may be entirely wrong to think a military response is needed but there is clearly nothing politically in it for him.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It was - when MLK did it. i think you missed the point.
I'm sure there was a good reason they didnt invite him along to the tribute show.
Christopher James @ChrisJames_90 Miliband says Labour will back military intervention #Syria if it is "legal, removes chemical weapons and has achievable goals"
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
Hopefully he will.
But causing party-political divides over UK military action would be an incredibly brave thing to do.
As for Nick Clegg *shakes head in sorrow and shame*
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Enoch Powell
" The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact he is a West Indian or an Asian still."
The latter's fans on here are always going to be upset by the former's long term victory.
And the latter was not commenting on the colour of their skin
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
Requiring UN approval gives Russia a veto. That's fine for Ed this time, but what if in some future crisis, he wants to intervene and Russia says no?
If Ed wants to preserve his freedom of action for future crisis, he needs to leave the option of acting without explicit UN approval open.
Is Cameron in trouble when it comes to his justification of the deployment of the armed forces of the Crown in Libya in 2011:
"Intervening in another country's affairs should not be undertaken save in quite exceptional circumstances. That is why we have always been clear that preparing for eventualities that might include the use of force—including a no-fly zone or other measures to stop humanitarian catastrophe—would require three steps and three tests to be met: demonstrable need, regional support, and a clear legal basis... The third and essential condition was that there should be a clear legal base. That is why along with France, Lebanon and the United States we worked hard to draft appropriate language that could command the support of the international community. Last night, the United Nations Security Council agreed that resolution." [HC Deb 18 Mar 2011, cols. 611-612]
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
The speech is fine. It's the people wanting to bask in someone else's glory.
"Having built a Hollywood career specialising in portraying villains it is perhaps not surprising that Steven Berkoff blamed his victim when he ran over a pedestrian.
The actor became “aggressive” after hitting Fiona Scully when he pulled on to the wrong side of the road to overtake a car which had stopped to allow her to cross. With dramatic flourish he confronted his victim in court today, accusing her of lying by claiming that he appeared to have been drinking in an attempt to cover up her own mistake...
Berkoff, 76, of Limehouse, East London, was found guilty of driving without due care and attention. He was fined £400 and was given three penalty points on his licence." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3853729.ece
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Enoch Powell
" The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact he is a West Indian or an Asian still."
The latter's fans on here are always going to be upset by the former's long term victory.
The BBC version of reality leaves out stuff like this
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
The speech is fine. It's the people wanting to bask in someone else's glory.
You dont think they're just paying tribute to him?
There is little doubt that any action taken will be fairly unpopular in the UK - so I find it hard to question Cameron's motive as anything but a desire to do the right thing. He may be entirely wrong to think a military response is needed but there is clearly nothing politically in it for him.
ConHome did report that one of the election campaign aims of CCHQ is allegedly for Mr Cameron to be perceived 'tough'.
"ConHome did report that one of the election campaign aims of CCHQ is allegedly for Mr Cameron to be perceived 'tough'."
Well let's hope some comedian in the HoC doesn't choose to run this 'execution of the clerics' footage while Dave is trying to look tough. Or It might backfire.
" Today David Cameron announced that he was recalling Parliament to debate what Britain should do about Syria. He made this announcement not in a speech, or in an interview, or even in a press release. He made it using his personal Twitter account. Much as I like Twitter, I can’t help feeling that it’s a somewhat informal medium for a statement by a Prime Minister about preparations for war. Had Twitter been available in September 1939, I wonder whether Neville Chamberlain would have used it.
“This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating that, unless we heard from them by 11,” Mr Chamberlain – or @NChambers_69 – would have tweeted. By this point he would have used up the maximum number of characters permitted per tweet, so the nation would have spent several breathless seconds awaiting the next instalment of the Prime Minister’s news...
“The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored.
“When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals.
“We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”
@Tim. What makes the content of Powell's speech even more gruesome is the fact that it was actually made six years after MLK's
Roger.
In a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness we could resolve the conflicts of the sixties by merging MLK's and EP's speeches:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will have the whip hand over the white man."
"I have a dream that one day even the Mississippi, a river sweltering with the heat of injustice, foaming with much blood, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."
"I have a dream that my four little picaninnies will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
See. All done. The ghosts of the past buried.
If I emailed you the full text would you be able to run it over to Doreen and The Dalai before they speak at the gates of the US Embassy.
@Tim. What makes the content of Powell's speech even more gruesome is the fact that it was actually made six years after MLK's
Roger.
In a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness we could resolve the conflicts of the sixties by merging MLK's and EP's speeches:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will have the whip hand over the white man."
"I have a dream that one day even the Mississippi, a river sweltering with the heat of injustice, foaming with much blood, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."
"I have a dream that my four little picaninnies will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
See. All done. The ghosts of the past buried.
If I emailed you the full text would you be able to run it over to Doreen and The Dalai before they speak at the gates of the US Embassy.
LOL - that is very funny. One of your best Mr Avery.
IMO,what this is about is Obama`s statement about red lines...Now he has to act or lose credibility.
So 100000 people have died in Syria through conventional civil war.And now 300 more people have died in a possible chemical bombing and suddenly the West wants to act.Just the other day the Egyptian military killed 500 people protesting their democratic government being overthrown and just a whimper from the U.S.They couldn`t care less it seemed!
I hope they act in a limited fashion and not take sides to depose leaders as they did in Libya.
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It's a great speech. But a lot of it is iin the rhythm and cadence - I'd rather listen to a recording that to go to a public narration
There is little doubt that any action taken will be fairly unpopular in the UK - so I find it hard to question Cameron's motive as anything but a desire to do the right thing. He may be entirely wrong to think a military response is needed but there is clearly nothing politically in it for him.
You can make a good case that being a good ally of the US is in Britain's general interest.
However it seems to me US foreign policy has gone increasingly insane since 9/11 so maybe time to detach for a bit.
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
The UN is broken - do you really believe Russia and China's threatened veto is based on it "bein gthe right thing to do" or on a narrow calculation of their national interests?
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
The UN is broken - do you really believe Russia and China's threatened veto is based on it "bein gthe right thing to do" or on a narrow calculation of their national interests?
The UN is broken - do you really believe the US and UK's threatened military attack is based on it "being the right thing to do" or on a narrow calculation of their national interests?
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
It does sound pretty gruesome
It's a very good speech.
It's a great speech. But a lot of it is iin the rhythm and cadence - I'd rather listen to a recording that to go to a public narration
Rhythm and cadence.
Quite right, Charles.
I have always thought the speech comes across best when delivered to a non-Anglophone audience.
Why the fu*k doesn't Ed just say he won't support action without UN approval? A course of action that single handedly got the unprincipled Clegg into government.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
The UN is broken - do you really believe Russia and China's threatened veto is based on it "bein gthe right thing to do" or on a narrow calculation of their national interests?
The UN is broken - do you really believe the US and UK's threatened military attack is based on it "being the right thing to do" or on a narrow calculation of their national interests?
Probably a combination of both (or at least they believe it is the right thing to do). For Obama his red line commitment makes it a strategic issue for American credibility.
Fundamentally, though, a nation can't subjugate its freedom to operate to the vetos of other countires
Given that US drone strikes have probably killed a couple of hundred innocent civilians, including women and children, in Pakistan alone, coupled with Lord knows how many Iraqi and Afghan civilians the US has killed, shouldn't we be talking about bombing America as well?
the report processes seem to be log jammed .I think we need to find out about Blair's illegal war first. ...after all nothing has happened in Syria yet and there has been no dodgy dossier to provide a pretence for war.
The party politics of Syria are vitally important. Can Ed Miliband resist outright opposition to any military action, given his repentance over Iraq? Should he?
How on earth is Nick Clegg going to acquiesce in any military action, given his position on Iraq?
Can David Cameron take his isolationists with him in support of action in Syria, given that many of them hate his guts?
This is likely to be one of the defining episodes of this Parliament.
The party politics of Syria are vitally important. Can Ed Miliband resist outright opposition to any military action, given his repentance over Iraq? Should he?
How on earth is Nick Clegg going to acquiesce in any military action, given his position on Iraq?
Can David Cameron take his isolationists with him in support of action in Syria, given that many of them hate his guts?
This is likely to be one of the defining episodes of this Parliament.
All of these points will be addressed in the morning thread.
And I've managed to reference Crassus and Caesar into the thread header.
People seem be having difficulty differentiating between an air-policing action (planned for Syria, as in Libya) and an armoured-division deployment and subsequent failed occupation (c.f. Iraq). Needless to say one is unsurprised....
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
People seem be having difficulty differetiating between an air-policing action (planned for Syria, as in Libya) and an armoured-division deployment and subsequent failed occupation (c.f. Iraq). Needless to say one is unsurprised....
I think we can all differentiate. I'd suggest that sane people are scared that the former might beget the latter.
Well at least Blair is maintaining his principles when it comes to bombing arabs.
But as I remember the Conservative view is that Blair tricked them into supporting the Iraq war by making up a pack of lies.
The Labour view is that the Iraq war was a mistake and they would never repeat it.
And the LibDem view is that any war without UN approval is wrong.
It will be interesting to see which politicians still get a political hard-on when the chance to launch a few cruise missiles comes or act like One Direction fans when Obama manages to come to a decision.
Well at least Blair is maintaining his principles when it comes to bombing arabs.
But as I remember the Conservative view is that Blair tricked them into supporting the Iraq war by making up a pack of lies.
The Labour view is that the Iraq war was a mistake and they would never repeat it.
And the LibDem view is that any war without UN approval is wrong.
It will be interesting to see which politicians still get a political hard-on when the chance to launch a few cruise missiles comes or act like One Direction fans when Obama manages to come to a decision.
People seem be having difficulty differetiating between an air-policing action (planned for Syria, as in Libya) and an armoured-division deployment and subsequent failed occupation (c.f. Iraq). Needless to say one is unsurprised....
I think we can all differentiate. I'd suggest that sane people are scared that the former might beget the latter.
People seem be having difficulty differetiating between an air-policing action (planned for Syria, as in Libya) and an armoured-division deployment and subsequent failed occupation (c.f. Iraq). Needless to say one is unsurprised....
I think we can all differentiate. I'd suggest that sane people are scared that the former might beget the latter.
It didn't in Libya.
No, it didn't, you're absolutely correct. Syria ain't Libya, though, not by a long way.
The party politics of Syria are vitally important. Can Ed Miliband resist outright opposition to any military action, given his repentance over Iraq? Should he?
How on earth is Nick Clegg going to acquiesce in any military action, given his position on Iraq?
Can David Cameron take his isolationists with him in support of action in Syria, given that many of them hate his guts?
anitifrank
Miliband has already given conditional support to the government, using the "legal, proportionate and specific" formula of qualifications being trotted out by all the leaders.
Miliband cannot risk taking an anti-US line on an intervention which, if it takes place, is likely to last less than a week and be more a demonstration of power than a strategic military engagement.
Ed has already ensured the Murdochs will oppose his election. The last thing he wants now is to have the Obama administration give him trouble too.
Clegg can hide behind the legal defence of the action being legitimate. This argument is clearly in preparation but the Telegraph article by Philip Johnston seems to have its drift:
Reuters reported Richard Haass, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, as saying: “The UN Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate…To say only the UN Security Council can make something legitimate seems to me to be a position that cannot be supported because it would allow in this case a country like Russia to be the arbiter of international law and, more broadly, international relations.”
A distinction is drawn, therefore, between what is legal and what is legitimate. The international consensus has been (though not in Moscow and Belgrade) that the 1999 Clinton/Blair intervention in Serbia was illegal but legitimate while the 2003 Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq had elements of legality provided by earlier UNSC resolutions but doubtful legitimacy when it became apparent that the reason given for war – the presence of weapons of mass destruction – did not exist.
Where international law is concerned, intervention on humanitarian grounds without Security Council backing is a violation but provided it is proportionate and necessary – two words we will hear a lot in the next few days – it can be considered legitimate.
On Cameron's "swivel-eyed loons", why rock the boat when the skipper appears to be winning the regatta?
@TSE I expect that tim would be riding the bombs as in Dr Strangelove.
I'm neither for nor against military intervention yet. I am, however, very sceptical that the military intervention has been thought through sufficiently. It looks suspiciously like an emotional spasm of outrage.
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
What is the goal of military action, though? Is it just aimed at stopping any more chemical attacks? Is it regime change? Where will it stop, and how far should we go?
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Whilst the gassing is of course dreadful, whoever did it, I simply struggle with why we need to get involved. Syria I just don't see as being part of our strategic interests and it's clearly not a friend and ally. My instinct says stay well clear.
British Bake Off @BritishBakeOff 'Paul The Psychic Octopus Tribute Loaf' – I don’t think anyone predicted we'd hear those six words together on primetime TV. #GBBO
British Bake Off @BritishBakeOff 'Paul The Psychic Octopus Tribute Loaf' – I don’t think anyone predicted we'd hear those six words together on primetime TV. #GBBO
Surely Paul would have. If he were any good of course....
Comments
You need to go beyond Electoral calculus and your rather large dose of wishful thinking to get a more realistic picture of what may happen in 2015.
Cameron's justification for wading in appeared to be "it stands to reason that Assad did it", and "trust me, I've seen the intelligence". Now where have we heard that before?
Is Dave going to stand up on Thursday and tell us we could be toast in 45 minutes?
And what of the "illegal war" brigade (yes Nick, that means you). What we're about to do appears to be completely illegal.
Can't believe we're here again.
There's nothing inane about pointing out the slight flaw in his logic.
As for Farage....what is there to like?
U.S. Embassy London @USAinUK
Tomorrow at 9am @BBCRadio4 John Hume & Doreen Lawrence join the Dali Lama & others narrating the whole #MLK speech dld.bz/cNFn9
Russia has sent a plane to gets it people out and leave some supplies. It'll be interesting to see if others follow. The Russian forward planning location in Beirut certainly has been busy.
Since yesterday Syrian military & other security personnel have been shifting.
The first flight in a short while from Latakia to Beirut flew yesterday.
US officials say Thursday for a 3 day operation. The time for ops sounds about right based on heavy but limited scope strikes battle damage assessment and pause but the announcement of Thursday is either designed to let anyone who wants to get their people out to do so but appears militarily to be the equivalent of saying we are going to land in Normandy not at the shortest point across the Channel. With the Americans to some extent it wont matter they'll pound the crap out of things anyway and some targets are very much fixed and they also do have good intelligence, much of it no doubt supplied by the Israelis who physical site and electronically know pretty much every inch of Syria.
The questions are:
If it is Thursday what will Assad do with his chemical stocks if he fears they will be hit, move them..or leave them?
Is it wise to attempt a pre-emption, not just to climb in the bunkers but also to get their retaliation in first?
What will actually be hit?
If the direct campaign is short and it really should be unless they miss the targets, will the real significant punishment be the enhanced support for insurgents out of Jordan that has been hotting up in recent weeks?
Thursday gives time for someone to blink and maybe this has been deliberate. Telling someone a hammer will fall then delivering it is much much worse There is some fear in Damascus and some members of the Assad system are perhaps wondering if its time to jump. The US for some time was trying to find people in his inner circle willing to parlay and launch a coup. Initially they found none but maybe a few will be changing their minds now. The US certainly hopes so.
Finally will it really be Thursday? I'd not stake money on it. If I had to, I'd say sooner.
It has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.
It's like a political speech version of Band Aid.
" It's so achingly PC and right-on. I even checked the US Embassy tweet account to make sure it wasn't a pee-take."
For a fan of Enoch Powell and all his works I doubt many will be surprised
Christopher James @ChrisJames_90
Miliband says Labour will back military intervention #Syria if it is "legal, removes chemical weapons and has achievable goals"
http://youtu.be/NXy2HQP1uJ4
But causing party-political divides over UK military action would be an incredibly brave thing to do.
As for Nick Clegg *shakes head in sorrow and shame*
Movement upside of that depends on how well the BBC version of reality holds up among the majority who still believe it's true.
And the latter was not commenting on the colour of their skin
If Ed wants to preserve his freedom of action for future crisis, he needs to leave the option of acting without explicit UN approval open.
"Having built a Hollywood career specialising in portraying villains it is perhaps not surprising that Steven Berkoff blamed his victim when he ran over a pedestrian.
The actor became “aggressive” after hitting Fiona Scully when he pulled on to the wrong side of the road to overtake a car which had stopped to allow her to cross. With dramatic flourish he confronted his victim in court today, accusing her of lying by claiming that he appeared to have been drinking in an attempt to cover up her own mistake...
Berkoff, 76, of Limehouse, East London, was found guilty of driving without due care and attention. He was fined £400 and was given three penalty points on his licence." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3853729.ece
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
http://tinyurl.com/mkef5yr
"ConHome did report that one of the election campaign aims of CCHQ is allegedly for Mr Cameron to be perceived 'tough'."
Well let's hope some comedian in the HoC doesn't choose to run this 'execution of the clerics' footage while Dave is trying to look tough. Or It might backfire.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/07/syrian_jihadists_beh.php
" Today David Cameron announced that he was recalling Parliament to debate what Britain should do about Syria. He made this announcement not in a speech, or in an interview, or even in a press release. He made it using his personal Twitter account. Much as I like Twitter, I can’t help feeling that it’s a somewhat informal medium for a statement by a Prime Minister about preparations for war. Had Twitter been available in September 1939, I wonder whether Neville Chamberlain would have used it.
“This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating that, unless we heard from them by 11,” Mr Chamberlain – or @NChambers_69 – would have tweeted. By this point he would have used up the maximum number of characters permitted per tweet, so the nation would have spent several breathless seconds awaiting the next instalment of the Prime Minister’s news...
Instant online pandemonium. Imagine the list of trending topics. “Down with Nazis”, for example, and “#BigNev”, and “Beliebers against Hitler”. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10269536/Sketch-Cameron-Syria-and-an-oddly-informal-declaration.html
“When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals.
“We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”
http://www.labour.org.uk/statement-on-syria,2013-08-27
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSq9lfwCMAEe1WV.jpg:large
I suffered from premature typing, and accidentally pressed the publish button.
http://www.labour.org.uk/statement-on-syria,2013-08-27
Seems clear enough.
Edit: sorry, Dr_Spyn got there first ...
In a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness we could resolve the conflicts of the sixties by merging MLK's and EP's speeches:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will have the whip hand over the white man."
"I have a dream that one day even the Mississippi, a river sweltering with the heat of injustice, foaming with much blood, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."
"I have a dream that my four little picaninnies will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
See. All done. The ghosts of the past buried.
If I emailed you the full text would you be able to run it over to Doreen and The Dalai before they speak at the gates of the US Embassy.
http://fora.tv/2007/10/03/Wesley_Clark_A_Time_to_Lead/Wesley_Clark_on_America_s_Foreign_Policy__Coup_
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/hollings-says-iraq-war-was-launched-in-large-part-to-secure-israel.html/comment-page-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Israel-Clash-Civilisations-Remake-Middle/dp/0745327559
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/03/worlddispatch.iraq
http://members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html
So 100000 people have died in Syria through conventional civil war.And now 300 more people have died in a possible chemical bombing and suddenly the West wants to act.Just the other day the Egyptian military killed 500 people protesting their democratic government being overthrown and just a whimper from the U.S.They couldn`t care less it seemed!
I hope they act in a limited fashion and not take sides to depose leaders as they did in Libya.
However it seems to me US foreign policy has gone increasingly insane since 9/11 so maybe time to detach for a bit.
Quite right, Charles.
I have always thought the speech comes across best when delivered to a non-Anglophone audience.
Newspapers breached an agreement not to publish photos of the Camerons on holiday after posed photos were “boring” j.mp/15tZZrr
Fundamentally, though, a nation can't subjugate its freedom to operate to the vetos of other countires
Everybody hates us
Just because we eat Lab/Lib/Cons
Short fat hairy ones
Long tall skinny ones
See how the little ones squirm
Bite all their heads off
Suck all the juice out
Throw the empty skins away
Nobody Likes us
Everybody hates us
Cos we eat Lab/Lib/Cons all day
I wonder why the Lab/Lib/Cons all hate us? Give me a clue.
the report processes seem to be log jammed .I think we need to find out about Blair's illegal war first. ...after all nothing has happened in Syria yet and there has been no dodgy dossier to provide a pretence for war.
How on earth is Nick Clegg going to acquiesce in any military action, given his position on Iraq?
Can David Cameron take his isolationists with him in support of action in Syria, given that many of them hate his guts?
This is likely to be one of the defining episodes of this Parliament.
And I've managed to reference Crassus and Caesar into the thread header.
"We need to make the white folk angry."
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-israel-lobby-in-britain-full-text#m10
But as I remember the Conservative view is that Blair tricked them into supporting the Iraq war by making up a pack of lies.
The Labour view is that the Iraq war was a mistake and they would never repeat it.
And the LibDem view is that any war without UN approval is wrong.
It will be interesting to see which politicians still get a political hard-on when the chance to launch a few cruise missiles comes or act like One Direction fans when Obama manages to come to a decision.
The party politics of Syria are vitally important. Can Ed Miliband resist outright opposition to any military action, given his repentance over Iraq? Should he?
How on earth is Nick Clegg going to acquiesce in any military action, given his position on Iraq?
Can David Cameron take his isolationists with him in support of action in Syria, given that many of them hate his guts?
anitifrank
Miliband has already given conditional support to the government, using the "legal, proportionate and specific" formula of qualifications being trotted out by all the leaders.
Miliband cannot risk taking an anti-US line on an intervention which, if it takes place, is likely to last less than a week and be more a demonstration of power than a strategic military engagement.
Ed has already ensured the Murdochs will oppose his election. The last thing he wants now is to have the Obama administration give him trouble too.
Clegg can hide behind the legal defence of the action being legitimate. This argument is clearly in preparation but the Telegraph article by Philip Johnston seems to have its drift:
Reuters reported Richard Haass, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, as saying: “The UN Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate…To say only the UN Security Council can make something legitimate seems to me to be a position that cannot be supported because it would allow in this case a country like Russia to be the arbiter of international law and, more broadly, international relations.”
A distinction is drawn, therefore, between what is legal and what is legitimate. The international consensus has been (though not in Moscow and Belgrade) that the 1999 Clinton/Blair intervention in Serbia was illegal but legitimate while the 2003 Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq had elements of legality provided by earlier UNSC resolutions but doubtful legitimacy when it became apparent that the reason given for war – the presence of weapons of mass destruction – did not exist.
Where international law is concerned, intervention on humanitarian grounds without Security Council backing is a violation but provided it is proportionate and necessary – two words we will hear a lot in the next few days – it can be considered legitimate.
On Cameron's "swivel-eyed loons", why rock the boat when the skipper appears to be winning the regatta?
I'm neither for nor against military intervention yet. I am, however, very sceptical that the military intervention has been thought through sufficiently. It looks suspiciously like an emotional spasm of outrage.
Blair wanted to give Assad a Knighthood, Cameron's going to bomb him
Edit and I'm aware Churchill was in favour of gassing the Kurds
I thought 2010 was the number of times he repeats a post.
Perhaps we should have a referendum on what we should do in Syria, conducted under AV.
Options include do nothing, to testing Trident on Assad's house and all options in between
Case in point:
Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths
Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
British Bake Off @BritishBakeOff
'Paul The Psychic Octopus Tribute Loaf' – I don’t think anyone predicted we'd hear those six words together on primetime TV. #GBBO
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.