What's ironic is that Cameron is pushing for a position tim wants(like the good little neo-con Blair lover that he is), and Miliband against that position....
Miliband's not against it. He's completely uninterested in the right course of action, he's just playing cynical party-political games - effective in the short term, but likely to unravel in the next few days.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
Sadly it was Hague and Cameron who jumped to conclusions before the facts were in. Both are tarnished by this affair.
What's ironic is that Cameron is pushing for a position tim wants(like the good little neo-con Blair lover that he is), and Miliband against that position....
Miliband's not against it. He's completely uninterested in the right course of action, he's just playing cynical party-political games - effective in the short term, but likely to unravel in the next few days.
The fig leaf of the UN will only last a few days. He'll have to come to a position at some point.
"and whilst the poll can't be considered scientific most who answered blamed Al-Qaeda rebels rather than Assad:"
This compounds Cameron's problems. Even for those who think punishment bombings acceptable (and in my view they're insane) believing he's bombing the wrong side will cause real outrage. Assad is not seen as Saddam was. He's hard to paint as a monster.
Sadly it was Hague and Cameron who jumped to conclusions before the facts were in. Both are tarnished by this affair.
Don't be silly - they've seen the intelligence (as have Merkel, Hollande, Rudd, Obama, Kerry - hardly war-mongers, any of them, and all support some kind of action).
This thread was about when Conservatives would take a lead in the polls over Labour. A very good one TSE. One or two posts about something not on topic can inform us all particularly if we have had a hundred other posts and in the morning thread there is a need to highlight through one post, a story that could change the polling.
But today I view the thread and it is literally polluted by "tim" repeating ad nauseum his spin about how bad Cameron is doing on Syria. The action of posting multiple posts repeating the same theme, detracts from the website and must add to the costs - possibly 10% to 20% of the sites costs caused by tim's posts? Now back to work!
What's ironic is that Cameron is pushing for a position tim wants(like the good little neo-con Blair lover that he is), and Miliband against that position....
Exactly.
He wants us to intervene.
Because he is a leftist thinker. The left thinks that it can solve everyone's problems - our citizens', their citizens', everyone's citizens'.
Nick Clegg was seriously impressive on Today this morning defending the government's position on Syria. A tricky gig by any standards, and he handled it superbly - coherent, articulate, balanced, passionate, and without any of the tetchiness he sometimes exhibits. I don't think I've heard a politician give a better interview for many months. Bravo!
Of course this is a separate question from whether one agrees with him or not; on the same programme, Sir Max Hastings argued very persuasively on the opposite side.
Interesting. I didn't hear that. If the Lib Dems are on board the whips better be working overtime explaining what Ed is up to and the importance of winning the vote today. This could get very interesting.
Even his critics acknowledge that Cameron is usually at his best when his back is against the wall. That is where he is now. He needs to rally his own troops and belittle Ed at the same time.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
Richard, the problem I had was that I simply could not see any way that throwing a few missiles at Syria was going to make things better. Either it was gesture politics of the worst kind (given that it would inevitably kill people) or it would demonstrate our impotence.
The alternative of a more substantial intervention intended to tilt the civil war against Assad seemed to me equally problematic. Do we really want these rebels to win? How would the Russians and the Iranians react? Why is this in our interests?
None of these reservations really turn on the quality of evidence showing that Assad is responsible for this particular atrocity or not so I did not see any great need to wait for those facts to be established.
As for the politics Cameron undoubtedly looks weaker at the moment. How this will end up is much harder to say.
What's ironic is that Cameron is pushing for a position tim wants(like the good little neo-con Blair lover that he is), and Miliband against that position....
Miliband's not against it. He's completely uninterested in the right course of action, he's just playing cynical party-political games - effective in the short term, but likely to unravel in the next few days.
By opposing the motion put forward today (which is practically what he wanted yesterday) Miliband has shown his true colours. Any excuse for a political stunt. I can't help but feel that it's Labour and UKIP who have seriously misjudged this. The case is quite a simple one, it's about morality and precedent. Is it moral to allow a dictator to use chemical weapons unpunished? And will the precedent of such an attack going unpunished embolden Assad and other such evil sods from doing it again without fear of retribution.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
That is the Labour position.
Well, at least (as I predicted) Miliband has been dissuaded from outsourcing his conscience to Vladimir Putin, as was being suggested yesterday.
What is the point of getting more international agreements to limit any weaponry, if we cannot uphold existing ones (nuclear limitations in North Korea and Syria, plus the use of chemical weapons in Syria)?
The chemical warfare treaties are going to become worthless pieces of paper if this continues
MicoPork is right (*): the ICC should be heavily involved. But it seems the ICC might be toothless, especially as Syria is not a signatory. However according to the blog below, the situation is complex but Syria might still be able to be prosecuted.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
That is the Labour position.
Well, at least (as I predicted) Miliband has been dissuaded from outsourcing his conscience to Vladimir Putin, as one being suggested yesterday.
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 29/08/2013 10:17 In Westminster today with our poster truck saying NO to any more UK involvement in foreign wars pic.twitter.com/8kFEmcosZb
But the muscle memory of this will be that he didn't lie, steamroll or sex anything up. He listened (because of course he had to) to his backbenchers and the opposition.
I want to believe that what you say is true, but then I remember that, despite everything, Blair was still elected at the 2005 general election.
I fear that you are wrong, that what could be remembered is Cameron's weakness, and that the lesson learned by the politicians will be that the public at large can more easily forgive lying than they can forgive weakness.
TV 30 Years Ago @tv30yearsago ITV 5.10 Blockbusters 5.40 Six Million Dollar Man 7.00 Krypton Factor 7.30 Corrie 8.00 Benny Hill 8.45 News 9.00 Film: Outlaw Josey Wales
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 2m In a change of tone from day or two ago, NYT reports 'no smoking gun' intelligence linking Assad to attack http://nyti.ms/1ds2YGM
@DavidL - Absolutely, no one sane disagrees with the proposition that any action has considerable risks, and sensible people will make different judgements on the balance of risks, having informed themsleves as thoroughly as possible. I would hope that the debate today would focus on a mature assessment of the risks and possible consequences either of action or inaction (and of course on whether the UK in particular should be involved in any action), but I fear Miliband's party-political games have made that impossible.
Chalk that up as yet another fail for the Tory strategists and press punditocracy.
Do you really honestly think this is the sort of subject that is suitable for political point scoring in the Westminster Village. You may not have noticed, but alot of lives depend on decisions such as this. British troops and Syrian ones also. It is the most pathetic of political politicking to try and ;run rings' round anyone on matters of such national importance. Ed Miliband has changed his position on this from Tuesday and again back - sorry I can't keep up. It is pathetic, this is a matter way above party politics. Clegg recognises that and so should Miliband.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
Yes , indeed , party loyalists like yourself will always jump in and take up a partisan position BEFORE facts are released and the debate held .
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 29/08/2013 10:17 In Westminster today with our poster truck saying NO to any more UK involvement in foreign wars pic.twitter.com/8kFEmcosZb
What does he suggest. Pull up the drawbridge have an even smaller armed forces and a 'Foxtrot Oscar, Foreigners' poster hanging from the white cliffs of Dover?
Do you really honestly think this is the sort of subject that is suitable for political point scoring in the Westminster Village.
Yes.
Everything is political. Stop whining.
We saw the clueless Right hastily start up its cherished "Ed is weak!" bandwagon yesterday morning only to have it torpedoed by the reality of Miliband's actual judgement rather than the Right's clearly jaundiced perception of it.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
Yes , indeed , party loyalists like yourself will always jump in and take up a partisan position BEFORE facts are released and the debate held .
Except that I haven't. I have expressed no view whatsoever on the substantive issue of whether I support action, although I have noted the extraordinary unanimity amongst Western leaders on the matter (this is in marked contrast to Iraq, BTW).
@DavidL - Absolutely, no one sane disagrees with the proposition that any action has considerable risks, and sensible people will make different judgements on the balance of risks, having informed themsleves as thoroughly as possible. I would hope that the debate today would focus on a mature assessment of the risks and possible consequences either of action or inaction (and of course on whether the UK in particular should be involved in any action), but I fear Miliband's party-political games have made that impossible.
What party political games? The LoO is doing precisely what he is paid to do. Quite Frankly, I can see both no10 and Parliament coming out well from this. We're a democracy. It's totalitarian regimes like Syria who proceed unchecked.
This is the official UKIP line on Syria that was sent out in their newsletter this morning.
UKIP statement on Syria
UKIP has issued the following statement on Syria: We have been in Afghanistan for longer than the first and second world wars put together and the benefits to the civilians of the country are marginally increased yet the price paid in money and blood by British troops is enormous. There is no clear proof it was the Assad regime who used chemical weapons. We have no idea who the rebels are - a point UKIP has been making since the start and we opposed the arming of the rebels who it has been indicated have extremist Islamic elements.
The MoD is already struggling with budget cuts and troops are being made redundant, many with very few opportunities of jobs on civvy street during this economic decline. It, quite simply, is not our business anyway. We are not world policemen. We saw a decade ago what happens with dodgy evidence being given to Parliament and we must not repeat the mistakes of Iraq.
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 29/08/2013 10:17 In Westminster today with our poster truck saying NO to any more UK involvement in foreign wars pic.twitter.com/8kFEmcosZb
What does he suggest. Pull up the drawbridge have an even smaller armed forces and a 'Foxtrot Oscar, Foreigners' poster hanging from the white cliffs of Dover?
Rather amusingly, he seemed to be arguing that we should give aid to the region instead.
What is the point of getting more international agreements to limit any weaponry, if we cannot uphold existing ones (nuclear limitations in North Korea and Syria, plus the use of chemical weapons in Syria)?
The chemical warfare treaties are going to become worthless pieces of paper if this continues
MicoPork is right (*): the ICC should be heavily involved. But it seems the ICC might be toothless, especially as Syria is not a signatory. However according to the blog below, the situation is complex but Syria might still be able to be prosecuted.
(*) As was Caroline Lucas, and I also made the point yesterday.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
@DavidL - Absolutely, no one sane disagrees with the proposition that any action has considerable risks, and sensible people will make different judgements on the balance of risks, having informed themsleves as thoroughly as possible. I would hope that the debate today would focus on a mature assessment of the risks and possible consequences either of action or inaction (and of course on whether the UK in particular should be involved in any action), but I fear Miliband's party-political games have made that impossible.
The case for intervention in the UK national interest has not been made. The fact that an evil monster (Roger, really?) has used chemical weapons against his own people is a bad precedent but is it for us or even the US to act as the world policeman in such a situation? It might be different if there was sufficient unanimity in the UN to act but there clearly is not and is not likely to be. So we are putting ourselves forward for the role of international policeman unilaterally.
As usual one of the complicating factors is the position of the US. Our policy for a long time has to be to get in close with them at every opportunity. It has considerable advantages in intelligence sharing and defence spending. It was at least a significant part of the calculation that drove Blair into Iraq.
Miliband has now gone against this policy in a way that will not impress the Americans. Many will say good on him and relive their Love Actually fantasies once again but this is a more significant step for the leader of a major UK party than he seems to appreciate.
One thing for sure is that the stakes are getting higher.
Extraordinary how people are taking positions on Syria BEFORE the facts are released and the debate held, but then we saw that with Libya too, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As for the politics, wait a few days.
Yes , indeed , party loyalists like yourself will always jump in and take up a partisan position BEFORE facts are released and the debate held .
Except that I haven't. I have expressed no view whatsoever on the substantive issue of whether I support action, although I have noted the extraordinary unanimity amongst Western leaders on the matter (this is in marked contrast to Iraq, BTW).
Sorry , Richard but you have , you have made numerous partisan posts many ludicrously accusing EdM of being in Putin's pocket and similar .
This thread was about when Conservatives would take a lead in the polls over Labour. A very good one TSE. One or two posts about something not on topic can inform us all particularly if we have had a hundred other posts and in the morning thread there is a need to highlight through one post, a story that could change the polling.
What's ironic is that Cameron is pushing for a position tim wants(like the good little neo-con Blair lover that he is), and Miliband against that position....
Why bother pronouncing on things you don't understand?
It two years too late for Cameron to adopt a coherent position regarding the Syrian opposition and regime change.
You would have gone in earlier? Get your retaliation in early?
You have said you are in favour of intervention. You have been saying it for some time and in that you seem to be in agreement with David Cameron. Both of you, however, and however cogent and noble your sentiments, have arrived at wanting to do something in Syria at a particularly difficult time, and before the full facts are known (if they ever can be).
We have been observing Syria in a "something must be done" way for months. But we have learnt, post-Iraq II, that it ain't so easy and unintended consequences overwhelm best intentions.
We couldn't have formulated a view or plan regarding the rebels earlier because we didn't know who they were. We still don't. We do know that they might have been victims of a chemical weapons attack and this has coincided with one of our "red lines".
So here is an opportunity to do something, almost certainly sub-optimal, but it is an opportunity. But it is beset by known and unknown unknowns. So we are treading carefully. We are in unchartered waters.
With all this going on, having criticised Dave for sharing your position, and acknowledging that he is slightly inept but has a moral case, can you really say that EdM is thinking of a morally sound course of action or do you think he is playing politics with this?
What is the point of getting more international agreements to limit any weaponry, if we cannot uphold existing ones (nuclear limitations in North Korea and Syria, plus the use of chemical weapons in Syria)?
The chemical warfare treaties are going to become worthless pieces of paper if this continues
MicoPork is right (*): the ICC should be heavily involved. But it seems the ICC might be toothless, especially as Syria is not a signatory. However according to the blog below, the situation is complex but Syria might still be able to be prosecuted.
(*) As was Caroline Lucas, and I also made the point yesterday.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As I said yesterday (although it might have been on another blog), long-term what we need is to give international organisations more teeth, and that includes the ICC.
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
Did anyone else see Ed Miliband on telly this morning and notice he has a new 'style'? A bit softer, less of that laser stare, a hint of a smile and collegiate nature.
It helped. Made him look a bit more sociable.
I was taught when I started work (by some wise old fella who killed himself with cider) that it is important to make people feel comfortable around you by appearing totally comfortable yourself.
Someone has obviously spotted that Ed looked a bit alien and wonkish on telly and has set to work on him.
The grim and ghoulish outcome may well be that we will be able to see in 20 years time precisely what the counterfactual of Iraq would have been had there been no 2nd Gulf war.
@DavidL - Those are all fair points, except that there's no question of the UK acting unilaterally - in fact even the US has said it won't act unilaterally.
Whether the case of intervention in the UK national interest has been made (or will be made) remains to be seen, but the argument for the West to act in matters of grave crimes against humanity is one which can be respectably made, with successful examples from Kosovo to the no-fly zone in Kurdish Northern Iraq before the war (John Major's achievement, largely).
Of course, even if one accepts all that, there is still the question of whether any action would actually be successful, or whether the risks of inflaming a bigger conflagration outweigh any benefits. These are grave matters to consider, not cheap party-political points or matters to be reduced as some do to personal attacks on individual politicians.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes No hurry: The French parliament will hold an emergency session to debate the Syria crisis next Wed, Sept 4, ministers say (AFP)
What is the point of getting more international agreements to limit any weaponry, if we cannot uphold existing ones (nuclear limitations in North Korea and Syria, plus the use of chemical weapons in Syria)?
The chemical warfare treaties are going to become worthless pieces of paper if this continues
MicoPork is right (*): the ICC should be heavily involved. But it seems the ICC might be toothless, especially as Syria is not a signatory. However according to the blog below, the situation is complex but Syria might still be able to be prosecuted.
(*) As was Caroline Lucas, and I also made the point yesterday.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As I said yesterday (although it might have been on another blog), long-term what we need is to give international organisations more teeth, and that includes the ICC.
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
Indeed. This hasn't come from a clear blue sky but is the result of an ever increasing ratcheting of ever more sickening 'tactics' by both sides in Syria with war crimes aplenty to go around. Nor is it the first probable incidence of chemical weapon usage. The more desperate either side gets the more hideous and savage will be their conduct since neither side has shown much if any regard for human rights. No amount of missile strikes will have the power to suddenly do so.
Ian Birrell @ianbirrell 1m Excellent news @BBCMarkEaston UK net migration 176k for 2012, UP from 153k for year to Sep 2012. ONS says recent decline 'not continued'
The idiot pledge falling apart is good news for everyone.
I haven't seen a breakdown of this, but I wonder if it's the previous restriction on overseas students falling out the other end. What they seemed to have done was to prevent people sticking around for longish courses, so you can still get in the country for a quick language course that has you leaving in a month, but you can't get a visa to study for longer except at the top end. That gives you a once-off drop in net migration as people finish their courses and leave or stay away and go to a country that will let them study for as long as they want to, but once that's fully worked through the net numbers go back to what they were originally.
Sorry , Richard but you have , you have made numerous partisan posts many ludicrously accusing EdM of being in Putin's pocket and similar .
What utter, unmitigated, 100% garbage. You're dreaming.
I did rightly point out that the position (which at one point Ed Miliband appeared to be taking, or at least considering) that action could only be taking with a UN resolution was effectively handing the decision to Vladimir Putin. If you are so stupid, or so blinded by partisanship, as to read that as me saying Miliband was in Putin's pocket, then I don't think I'm able to help you.
Doesn't anyone do due diligence any more before buying something?
I would have thought so, but some CEOs appear to want to show that they are decisive, empire builders regardless of the evidence against their chosen path of action... ;-)
Sorry , Richard but you have , you have made numerous partisan posts many ludicrously accusing EdM of being in Putin's pocket and similar .
What utter, unmitigated, 100% garbage. You're dreaming.
I did rightly point out that the position (which at one point Ed Miliband appeared to be taking, or at least considering) that action could only be taking with a UN resolution was effectively handing the decision to Vladimir Putin. If you are so stupid, or so blinded by partisanship, as to read that as me saying Miliband was in Putin's pocket, then I don't think I'm able to help you.
It is interesting how the most partisan posters such as yourself cannot see that they are being partisan when they read their own posts .
Dr. Spyn, but what's the point of building an empire if it lasts six minutes before crumbling into ruins and destroying the previously sound, er, kingdom that preceded it?
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 29/08/2013 10:17 In Westminster today with our poster truck saying NO to any more UK involvement in foreign wars pic.twitter.com/8kFEmcosZb
What does he suggest. Pull up the drawbridge have an even smaller armed forces and a 'Foxtrot Oscar, Foreigners' poster hanging from the white cliffs of Dover?
I think he would suggest bigger armed forces to defend the uk, but less spent on killing people in lands far away that are none of our business
It is interesting how the most partisan posters such as yourself cannot see that they are being partisan when they read their own posts .
Why don't you go off and find my 'numerous partisan posts ... ludicrously accusing EdM of being in Putin's pocket'? I'd be delighted to try to re-read them in as non-partisan light as I can.
This man is clinically insane. And he has access to nuclear weapons. We really do not give this lunatic enough attention. Assad is a threat to his own people and to the (non-existent) stability of a part of the middle east. Kim is a far, far greater threat.
On topic, the trend is for the lead to close, it's what we'd expect at this point in the parliament, and even if it wasn't you'd probably expect a poll some time this year rogue enough to put Con ahead. 3/1 is a bargain.
This man is clinically insane. And he has access to nuclear weapons. We really do not give this lunatic enough attention. Assad is a threat to his own people and to the (non-existent) stability of a part of the middle east. Kim is a far, far greater threat.
I remember in 2003 wondering why TB was so gung-ho about the Iraq war. I wondered (but doubted) that he had some secret intelligence that he couldn't reveal. So, despite being anti, I still hoped later facts would show he was right.
Of course, it didn't, he was just some posturing politician. The guff about 45 minutes and WMDs poisoned the well for future adventures (as Sean T has pointed out).
Ed could have come right out and said no, but he pirouetted round to see which way the wind was blowing first. A pox on both their houses.
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan 1m "We have gained a few days at most," a senior Labour MP tells me. What happens once inspectors report? What then? Does Labour still oppose?
Exactly my point.. all labour have done at the moment is deferred the decision point.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As I said yesterday (although it might have been on another blog), long-term what we need is to give international organisations more teeth, and that includes the ICC.
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
Indeed. This hasn't come from a clear blue sky but is the result of an ever increasing ratcheting of ever more sickening 'tactics' by both sides in Syria with war crimes aplenty to go around. Nor is it the first probable incidence of chemical weapon usage. The more desperate either side gets the more hideous and savage will be their conduct since neither side has shown much if any regard for human rights. No amount of missile strikes will have the power to suddenly do so.
Agree with all of that, until the last sentence. I'm hardly an expert on the military, but it may be perfectly possible to help one side or the other using well-planned missile strikes. The question is where to get the best bang for the buck, if you pardon the phrase.
For instance, if we try to help the rebels, and they are being pinned down in an area, targeting the Syrian command structure for that area might be of great help to the rebels.
My ideal solution to this mess sadly cannot happen: that an international group (ICC, ICJ, whatever) charges both sides with war crimes. Because the group has teeth and a track record of successful prosecutions and fairness, the crimes stop, if not the conflict. Then there is an investigation, and the command structure who ordered the crimes is held to account.
This would apply to the large powers as well as the smaller ones. That means us, the US, Russia, China: everyone.
We need to work towards this; sadly, I fear it is an impossible objective in the foreseeable future.
Sad news for fans of rugby, Cliff Morgan has died.
The original model from the fabled Fly Half factory. A great rugby player from the Rhondda. I him once at a supporters do for my local club, lovely bloke.
This man is clinically insane. And he has access to nuclear weapons. We really do not give this lunatic enough attention. Assad is a threat to his own people and to the (non-existent) stability of a part of the middle east. Kim is a far, far greater threat.
"She was luckier than Kim Chol, vice minister of the army, who was executed with a mortar round in October 2012".
Lol. North Korea sounds like great fun if you are the leader!
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Dr. Spyn, but what's the point of building an empire if it lasts six minutes before crumbling into ruins and destroying the previously sound, er, kingdom that preceded it?
The masters of that strategy are Mayo and Simpson, who showed that they could run a great firm into the ground followed closely by CEOs of C & W.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As I said yesterday (although it might have been on another blog), long-term what we need is to give international organisations more teeth, and that includes the ICC.
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
Indeed. This hasn't come from a clear blue sky but is the result of an ever increasing ratcheting of ever more sickening 'tactics' by both sides in Syria with war crimes aplenty to go around. Nor is it the first probable incidence of chemical weapon usage. The more desperate either side gets the more hideous and savage will be their conduct since neither side has shown much if any regard for human rights. No amount of missile strikes will have the power to suddenly do so.
My ideal solution to this mess sadly cannot happen: that an international group (ICC, ICJ, whatever) charges both sides with war crimes. Because the group has teeth and a track record of successful prosecutions and fairness, the crimes stop, if not the conflict. Then there is an investigation, and the command structure who ordered the crimes is held to account.
The ICC has no such track record - its first sentence was handed down last year - and the ICJ is not a criminal court. We could have an ad hoc tribunal, but it would struggle to operate pro-actively in the way you discuss.
Does anyone know why no one in Govt appears to be talking about using United Nations General Assembly resolution 377 (the "Uniting for Peace" resolution) if Russia vetoes, as this is exactly the scenario it was created for. (It wasnt possible for Iraq, because most of the world was against for obvious reasons, and the vote would have lost).
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
No. My understanding is that he is up for sentencing on 20th September. He has no criminal record, he is of an advanced age, the assaults are of a class that is strongly disapproved of, he gets no discount having gone to trial. 12 months is a possibility but unlikely I would say.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As I said yesterday (although it might have been on another blog), long-term what we need is to give international organisations more teeth, and that includes the ICC.
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
Indeed. This hasn't come from a clear blue sky but is the result of an ever increasing ratcheting of ever more sickening 'tactics' by both sides in Syria with war crimes aplenty to go around. Nor is it the first probable incidence of chemical weapon usage. The more desperate either side gets the more hideous and savage will be their conduct since neither side has shown much if any regard for human rights. No amount of missile strikes will have the power to suddenly do so.
My ideal solution to this mess sadly cannot happen: that an international group (ICC, ICJ, whatever) charges both sides with war crimes. Because the group has teeth and a track record of successful prosecutions and fairness, the crimes stop, if not the conflict. Then there is an investigation, and the command structure who ordered the crimes is held to account.
The ICC has no such track record - its first sentence was handed down last year - and the ICJ is not a criminal court. We could have an ad hoc tribunal, but it would struggle to operate pro-actively in the way you discuss.
Yes, I know: I was describing what I would like to see in the future. Sadly, we are nowhere near there, and won't be for a very long time.
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Sentencing is next month.
And a little googling tells me the maximum is a year (as TUD suggested when he was first convicted).
All very unsatisfactory - a very short sentence for the crimes he committed, too short to disqualify him and his peers cant do anything about it either despite most of them wanting rid.
This man is clinically insane. And he has access to nuclear weapons. We really do not give this lunatic enough attention. Assad is a threat to his own people and to the (non-existent) stability of a part of the middle east. Kim is a far, far greater threat.
"She was luckier than Kim Chol, vice minister of the army, who was executed with a mortar round in October 2012".
Lol. North Korea sounds like great fun if you are the leader!
Lol? I would respectfully suggest that your sense of humour needs some refinement. Maybe start with Benny Hill and then work up.
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Sentencing is next month.
And a little googling tells me the maximum is a year (as TUD suggested when he was first convicted).
All very unsatisfactory - a very short sentence for the crimes he committed, too short to disqualify him and his peers cant do anything about it either despite most of them wanting rid.
I'm not au fait with sentencing for these crimes/Sentencing North of the Border, but there could be an option for consecutive sentencing rather than concurrent sentencing.
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Sentencing is next month.
And a little googling tells me the maximum is a year (as TUD suggested when he was first convicted).
All very unsatisfactory - a very short sentence for the crimes he committed, too short to disqualify him and his peers cant do anything about it either despite most of them wanting rid.
I'm not au fait with sentencing for these crimes/Sentencing North of the Border, but there could be an option for consecutive sentencing rather than concurrent sentencing.
Perhaps there should be guidance issued that, in the case of an elected representative being sentenced, the judge should consider how much entertainment a by-election can provide the wider community.
It is interesting how the most partisan posters such as yourself cannot see that they are being partisan when they read their own posts .
Why don't you go off and find my 'numerous partisan posts ... ludicrously accusing EdM of being in Putin's pocket'? I'd be delighted to try to re-read them in as non-partisan light as I can.
Well how abour this non partisan post of yours " Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds ... " Clearly you were waiting for all the facts to come out into the public domain before you wrote that load of partisan drivel .
This man is clinically insane. And he has access to nuclear weapons. We really do not give this lunatic enough attention. Assad is a threat to his own people and to the (non-existent) stability of a part of the middle east. Kim is a far, far greater threat.
What a dreadful story! North Korea's people must be the unluckiest in the world.
I've also been making the point since the demands for a recall of parliament were first being made.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As I said yesterday (although it might have been on another blog), long-term what we need is to give international organisations more teeth, and that includes the ICC.
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
Indeed. This hasn't come from a clear blue sky but is the result of an ever increasing ratcheting of ever more sickening 'tactics' by both sides in Syria with war crimes aplenty to go around. Nor is it the first probable incidence of chemical weapon usage. The more desperate either side gets the more hideous and savage will be their conduct since neither side has shown much if any regard for human rights. No amount of missile strikes will have the power to suddenly do so.
My ideal solution to this mess sadly cannot happen: that an international group (ICC, ICJ, whatever) charges both sides with war crimes. Because the group has teeth and a track record of successful prosecutions and fairness, the crimes stop, if not the conflict. Then there is an investigation, and the command structure who ordered the crimes is held to account.
The ICC has no such track record - its first sentence was handed down last year - and the ICJ is not a criminal court. We could have an ad hoc tribunal, but it would struggle to operate pro-actively in the way you discuss.
Yes, I know: I was describing what I would like to see in the future. Sadly, we are nowhere near there, and won't be for a very long time.
I realise my previous response sounded a bit curt, but it was only supposed to be informative. I have little faith in the ICC to function properly for a couple of decades at the most optimistic.
Does anyone know why no one in Govt appears to be talking about using United Nations General Assembly resolution 377 (the "Uniting for Peace" resolution) if Russia vetoes, as this is exactly the scenario it was created for. (It wasnt possible for Iraq, because most of the world was against for obvious reasons, and the vote would have lost).
I don't know - but it is notable that the US has used its veto more often than any other country in recent decades.
I don't think the US would be keen for some of the resolutions concerning Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be sent to the General Assembly, so they wouldn't want to bypass the Security Council that way.
LOL! Blimey, Mark Senior is a twerp of the highest order!
Seriously, Mark - did you really read that as me saying that was my view? You did? You were really so staggeringly stupid as to think that, despite the quotation marks and the context?
Good lord. Well, if you're that stupid, you have my sympathy.
Meanwhile, did you find any posts where I said Miliband was in Putin's pocket, as you claimed?
Agree with all of that, until the last sentence. I'm hardly an expert on the military, but it may be perfectly possible to help one side or the other using well-planned missile strikes. The question is where to get the best bang for the buck, if you pardon the phrase.
Sorry, that was my fault, I wasn't clear enough. Missile strikes can indeed degrade one side or the other in a civil war and in this case It would be a blow to Assad with the rebels absolutely delighted if it was to take place. What missile strikes can't do is suddenly inculcate a respect for human rights on either side since that was almost completely absent long before this and will still be after any attack. The prospect of the perpetrators of a crime against humanity being prosecuted by the ICC has the advantage of not being indiscriminate and actually bringing those who order and carry out such crimes to justice.
In fact the most probable outcome of missile strikes is a further entrenching of both sides with ever more desperate tactics. The missile attacks, while degrading and likely deadly, cannot possibly 'win' this intractable civil war.
If regime change is actually the aim, and this is merely the first step, then it is incumbent on the US and it's allies to finally be honest with the public and say so. If it is not, as is claimed, then the U.S. and it's allies will have to accept that their 'solution' involves choosing sides in a civil war with an attack outcome that is specifically designed to benefit one side when both sides have been implicated in multiple egregious war crimes long before now.
Prosecuting those guilty of war crimes on both sides is the most effective outcome with the maximum deterrent effect not only on those who perpetrate them in Syria but on those who may consider doing so elsewhere.
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Sentencing is next month.
And a little googling tells me the maximum is a year (as TUD suggested when he was first convicted).
All very unsatisfactory - a very short sentence for the crimes he committed, too short to disqualify him and his peers cant do anything about it either despite most of them wanting rid.
I'm not au fait with sentencing for these crimes/Sentencing North of the Border, but there could be an option for consecutive sentencing rather than concurrent sentencing.
It would depend on how the prosecution was brought. If he was facing a single complaint containing all 23 charges then on sentencing the sheriff cannot impose a sentence beyond the 12 months unless there are aggravating factors such as a previous conviction of some types or a bail aggravation.
If there were different complaints for each victim then he could in theory get consecutive sentences on each complaint. This is unlikely to be the case here although the decision to put 23 charges of assault and Breach of the Peace on a single summary complaint is, well, interesting.
Has he been sentenced yet? Mark Senior suggested there might be a chance that with 23 counts he could get over a year and save us all the indignity of watching him cling on.
Sentencing is next month.
And a little googling tells me the maximum is a year (as TUD suggested when he was first convicted).
All very unsatisfactory - a very short sentence for the crimes he committed, too short to disqualify him and his peers cant do anything about it either despite most of them wanting rid.
I'm not au fait with sentencing for these crimes/Sentencing North of the Border, but there could be an option for consecutive sentencing rather than concurrent sentencing.
It would depend on how the prosecution was brought. If he was facing a single complaint containing all 23 charges then on sentencing the sheriff cannot impose a sentence beyond the 12 months unless there are aggravating factors such as a previous conviction of some types or a bail aggravation.
If there were different complaints for each victim then he could in theory get consecutive sentences on each complaint. This is unlikely to be the case here although the decision to put 23 charges of assault and Breach of the Peace on a single summary complaint is, well, interesting.
Thanks David. So more than 12 months seems unlikely.
Milliband has played a PR blinder by shifting his goalposts and making Cameron look weak as a result. He will get away with it as well, because the public is sufficiently against any action in Syria (even to prevent children being hassed, it seems) that they welcome his shifting dance, as will much of the media. However, it doesnt bode well for Milliband as PM material.
Comments
Only if you know little. For example, look at Syria's record of human rights under him (and before the current conflict):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria
Quite monstrous.
Or the Hama massacres under his father:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Hama_massacre
and Bashar al-Assad himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Hama_massacre
He wants us to intervene.
Because he is a leftist thinker. The left thinks that it can solve everyone's problems - our citizens', their citizens', everyone's citizens'.
Even his critics acknowledge that Cameron is usually at his best when his back is against the wall. That is where he is now. He needs to rally his own troops and belittle Ed at the same time.
Even by the standards of Guardian readers, that's a humdinger.
The alternative of a more substantial intervention intended to tilt the civil war against Assad seemed to me equally problematic. Do we really want these rebels to win? How would the Russians and the Iranians react? Why is this in our interests?
None of these reservations really turn on the quality of evidence showing that Assad is responsible for this particular atrocity or not so I did not see any great need to wait for those facts to be established.
As for the politics Cameron undoubtedly looks weaker at the moment. How this will end up is much harder to say.
What is the point of getting more international agreements to limit any weaponry, if we cannot uphold existing ones (nuclear limitations in North Korea and Syria, plus the use of chemical weapons in Syria)?
The chemical warfare treaties are going to become worthless pieces of paper if this continues
MicoPork is right (*): the ICC should be heavily involved. But it seems the ICC might be toothless, especially as Syria is not a signatory. However according to the blog below, the situation is complex but Syria might still be able to be prosecuted.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-the-icc-prosecute-for-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria/
(*) As was Caroline Lucas, and I also made the point yesterday.
Mark Easton @BBCMarkEaston
UK net migration 176k for 2012, UP from 153k for year to Sep 2012. #ONS says recent decline "has not continued".
29/08/2013 10:17
In Westminster today with our poster truck saying NO to any more UK involvement in foreign wars pic.twitter.com/8kFEmcosZb
I fear that you are wrong, that what could be remembered is Cameron's weakness, and that the lesson learned by the politicians will be that the public at large can more easily forgive lying than they can forgive weakness.
So much for weak leadership.
Chalk that up as yet another fail for the Tory strategists and press punditocracy.
TV 30 Years Ago @tv30yearsago
ITV 5.10 Blockbusters 5.40 Six Million Dollar Man 7.00 Krypton Factor 7.30 Corrie 8.00 Benny Hill 8.45 News 9.00 Film: Outlaw Josey Wales
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 2m
In a change of tone from day or two ago, NYT reports 'no smoking gun' intelligence linking Assad to attack http://nyti.ms/1ds2YGM
Obama starting to look like a grade-A arse...
Everything is political. Stop whining.
We saw the clueless Right hastily start up its cherished "Ed is weak!" bandwagon yesterday morning only to have it torpedoed by the reality of Miliband's actual judgement rather than the Right's clearly jaundiced perception of it.
UKIP statement on Syria
UKIP has issued the following statement on Syria: We have been in Afghanistan for longer than the first and second world wars put together and the benefits to the civilians of the country are marginally increased yet the price paid in money and blood by British troops is enormous. There is no clear proof it was the Assad regime who used chemical weapons. We have no idea who the rebels are - a point UKIP has been making since the start and we opposed the arming of the rebels who it has been indicated have extremist Islamic elements.
The MoD is already struggling with budget cuts and troops are being made redundant, many with very few opportunities of jobs on civvy street during this economic decline. It, quite simply, is not our business anyway. We are not world policemen. We saw a decade ago what happens with dodgy evidence being given to Parliament and we must not repeat the mistakes of Iraq.
I didn't say it would be an easy solution but lobbing a couple of hundred cruise missiles at a problem isn't exactly what I would call an easy solution either.
BTW I already saw that blog article and it's a very interesting read.
As usual one of the complicating factors is the position of the US. Our policy for a long time has to be to get in close with them at every opportunity. It has considerable advantages in intelligence sharing and defence spending. It was at least a significant part of the calculation that drove Blair into Iraq.
Miliband has now gone against this policy in a way that will not impress the Americans. Many will say good on him and relive their Love Actually fantasies once again but this is a more significant step for the leader of a major UK party than he seems to appreciate.
One thing for sure is that the stakes are getting higher.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114
Navy already in position to support the Septics?:
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/great-power-grave-responsibilities.html
Could France and the UK be pivotal to US plans?:
http://defencewithac.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-impending-intervention-in-syria.html
Whatever the outcome Wee-Timmy will claim he backed the winning side....
Roger wrote
"I suspect after 'bomber' Cameron's performance yesterday the polls will swing back pretty damn quickly. "
That means only one thing, pile onto the 3/1 on 2013 showing a Tory lead with YouGov.
http://t.co/9f7dHzQhMp
You have said you are in favour of intervention. You have been saying it for some time and in that you seem to be in agreement with David Cameron. Both of you, however, and however cogent and noble your sentiments, have arrived at wanting to do something in Syria at a particularly difficult time, and before the full facts are known (if they ever can be).
We have been observing Syria in a "something must be done" way for months. But we have learnt, post-Iraq II, that it ain't so easy and unintended consequences overwhelm best intentions.
We couldn't have formulated a view or plan regarding the rebels earlier because we didn't know who they were. We still don't. We do know that they might have been victims of a chemical weapons attack and this has coincided with one of our "red lines".
So here is an opportunity to do something, almost certainly sub-optimal, but it is an opportunity. But it is beset by known and unknown unknowns. So we are treading carefully. We are in unchartered waters.
With all this going on, having criticised Dave for sharing your position, and acknowledging that he is slightly inept but has a moral case, can you really say that EdM is thinking of a morally sound course of action or do you think he is playing politics with this?
Sadly, that doesn't look likely to happen any time soon, especially with the US's refusal to take part.
It helped. Made him look a bit more sociable.
I was taught when I started work (by some wise old fella who killed himself with cider) that it is important to make people feel comfortable around you by appearing totally comfortable yourself.
Someone has obviously spotted that Ed looked a bit alien and wonkish on telly and has set to work on him.
Job well done so far.
Whether the case of intervention in the UK national interest has been made (or will be made) remains to be seen, but the argument for the West to act in matters of grave crimes against humanity is one which can be respectably made, with successful examples from Kosovo to the no-fly zone in Kurdish Northern Iraq before the war (John Major's achievement, largely).
Of course, even if one accepts all that, there is still the question of whether any action would actually be successful, or whether the risks of inflaming a bigger conflagration outweigh any benefits. These are grave matters to consider, not cheap party-political points or matters to be reduced as some do to personal attacks on individual politicians.
No hurry: The French parliament will hold an emergency session to debate the Syria crisis next Wed, Sept 4, ministers say (AFP)
I did rightly point out that the position (which at one point Ed Miliband appeared to be taking, or at least considering) that action could only be taking with a UN resolution was effectively handing the decision to Vladimir Putin. If you are so stupid, or so blinded by partisanship, as to read that as me saying Miliband was in Putin's pocket, then I don't think I'm able to help you.
Disgraced MSP Bill Walker refuses to quit
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/disgraced-msp-bill-walker-refuses-to-quit-1.125010
This man is clinically insane. And he has access to nuclear weapons. We really do not give this lunatic enough attention. Assad is a threat to his own people and to the (non-existent) stability of a part of the middle east. Kim is a far, far greater threat.
Her popularity reportedly peaked in 2005 with the song "Excellent Horse-Like Lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzYzVMcgWhg
I remember in 2003 wondering why TB was so gung-ho about the Iraq war. I wondered (but doubted) that he had some secret intelligence that he couldn't reveal. So, despite being anti, I still hoped later facts would show he was right.
Of course, it didn't, he was just some posturing politician. The guff about 45 minutes and WMDs poisoned the well for future adventures (as Sean T has pointed out).
Ed could have come right out and said no, but he pirouetted round to see which way the wind was blowing first. A pox on both their houses.
http://labourlist.org/2013/08/labourlist-readers-want-mps-to-oppose-syria-air-strikes/
Comments anyone, on how the Labour Party is divorced from their supporters?
"We have gained a few days at most," a senior Labour MP tells me. What happens once inspectors report? What then? Does Labour still oppose?
Exactly my point.. all labour have done at the moment is deferred the decision point.
For instance, if we try to help the rebels, and they are being pinned down in an area, targeting the Syrian command structure for that area might be of great help to the rebels.
My ideal solution to this mess sadly cannot happen: that an international group (ICC, ICJ, whatever) charges both sides with war crimes. Because the group has teeth and a track record of successful prosecutions and fairness, the crimes stop, if not the conflict. Then there is an investigation, and the command structure who ordered the crimes is held to account.
This would apply to the large powers as well as the smaller ones. That means us, the US, Russia, China: everyone.
We need to work towards this; sadly, I fear it is an impossible objective in the foreseeable future.
Lol. North Korea sounds like great fun if you are the leader!
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/237700-msps-call-for-wife-beater-bill-walker-to-resign-as-he-remains-defiant/
All very unsatisfactory - a very short sentence for the crimes he committed, too short to disqualify him and his peers cant do anything about it either despite most of them wanting rid.
" Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds ... "
Clearly you were waiting for all the facts to come out into the public domain before you wrote that load of partisan drivel .
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233087/the-truth-about-the-syria-vote-miliband-changed-his-mind/
I don't think the US would be keen for some of the resolutions concerning Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be sent to the General Assembly, so they wouldn't want to bypass the Security Council that way.
Seriously, Mark - did you really read that as me saying that was my view? You did? You were really so staggeringly stupid as to think that, despite the quotation marks and the context?
Good lord. Well, if you're that stupid, you have my sympathy.
Meanwhile, did you find any posts where I said Miliband was in Putin's pocket, as you claimed?
In fact the most probable outcome of missile strikes is a further entrenching of both sides with ever more desperate tactics. The missile attacks, while degrading and likely deadly, cannot possibly 'win' this intractable civil war.
If regime change is actually the aim, and this is merely the first step, then it is incumbent on the US and it's allies to finally be honest with the public and say so. If it is not, as is claimed, then the U.S. and it's allies will have to accept that their 'solution' involves choosing sides in a civil war with an attack outcome that is specifically designed to benefit one side when both sides have been implicated in multiple egregious war crimes long before now.
Prosecuting those guilty of war crimes on both sides is the most effective outcome with the maximum deterrent effect not only on those who perpetrate them in Syria but on those who may consider doing so elsewhere.
If there were different complaints for each victim then he could in theory get consecutive sentences on each complaint. This is unlikely to be the case here although the decision to put 23 charges of assault and Breach of the Peace on a single summary complaint is, well, interesting.
Not unhappy with that. Plus, I was in Syria.
http://usvsth3m.com/post/59663522187/so-which-government-source-called-ed-miliband-a