Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour can’t afford a Shadow Cabinet anchored to the past
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour can’t afford a Shadow Cabinet anchored to the past
The debate on Syria has highlighted one of the advantages of Ed Miliband’s leadership. As someone who was not even an MP or in the country when the decision to invade Iraq was taken, the Labour leader is able to make policy decisions today free from some of the political shackles of the past.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Part of the problem is that each time they come under fire, the government creates a talking point that they can defend at that time. But over time those talking points pile up and harden into something increasingly distant from reality. Government ministers stay out of trouble by faithfully mastering the talking points, but after long enough in government that makes them unable to communicate with the voters.
BTW what was the deal with that bloke who resigned? If seems like a weird time to resign, especially for someone who stuck with Blair - was he on his way out in the reshuffle?
Caroline Flint has been nifty on her feet over energy issues and looks like a smart survivor who can adapt.
What does that sentence add to the sum of all human knowledge? It's shallower than a puddle in Death Valley. Good grief.
With approx 30 Con MPs out to get him plus the scope for LD rebellions as well it is now obvious that he can't be confident of getting anything remotely controversial through the Commons.
I guess that may not matter if he just settles for non-controversial stuff up until 2015 - most of the controversial stuff has already been done anyway.
But with the maths as it is, it seems obvious to me that the DUP MPs are now important. If they had voted with the Government last night he would have won.
I think it's highly likely they will be the deciding factor on some more votes in the future. So he should give them some type of "inducement" and get their support.
I posted on here yesterday at 3pm that I wondered if Cameron may have to resign with 24 hours as it seemed obvious that he may well lose the vote.
One or two posters responded by mocking me.
I would have thought anyone with primary school maths would have been able to work it out - it was blindingly obvious what the numbers were.
To be fair I didn't know how many abstentions there would be but I guess there were simply a lot across all parties who couldn't be bothered to return from holiday.
But going forward it is simple. He has a majority of 77. With 30 Con MPs looking to cause trouble at any opportunity + scope for LD rebels then basically he is under major threat if backbenchers have any opportunity to rebel.
If Ed was strong he would announce a Shadow Cabinet entirely of his own choosing and be able to declare that he had thrown away all the trappings of both Blair and Brown and had an opposition with thought and vision that is needed for the 2020s - but as you say....
WRT the living wage, I would be grateful if you would explain how it would be paid for and how the resulting price rises would increase the Uk's global competitiveness - or will all tax credits and allowances be ditched?
The business lobby group now expects 1.3% growth this year, up from 0.9%. Its forecasts for the next two years were upped to 2.2% and 2.5%.
But the BCC also warned of overseas risks to the more positive outlook, notably those posed by the eurozone, the Middle East and China's slowdown.
"Unfortunately the recovery is not yet secure," said BCC head John Longworth.
"We have had false dawns in recent years and although this upturn appears to be on stronger ground, we must be aware that complacency could lead to setbacks," the organisation's director general said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23893789
Nor is it clear that Balls is actually connected to Brown in the eyes of the average voter who does not follow politics as closely as we do.
But you know who is anchored to the past, yet has been nominated to replace Balls and even backed for next Chancellor by notable pb denizens -- Alistair Darling.
But Ed Miliband needs to pray that the Syrian government doesn't commit any more atrocities. Because David Cameron is going to lay them all at his door from now on.
More gas for Syria.
More bodies.
More popcorn.
It's like they're trying to downplay the seriousness of the attacks so that we don't have to do anything.
The fact that Israel were able to use phosphorus bombs in Gaza without sanction shows it to be no more than bullying by the powerful on the weak.
This not only causes resentment but teaches that physical power is everything and encourages powerless nations to go on a weapons chase
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza
Let's not forget that Miliband made promises to the Prime Minister about a matter of national security following a briefing on privy counsel terms.
He then retraded with the aim of embarassing the PM.
It seems there are two options:
(1) He is a untrustworthy person who thinks of nothing but political advantage
(2) He can be leant on by others that disagree
Either way he is unfit to be Prime Minister. This is not to say that he *won't* be Prime Minister, but I truly believe he will be absolutely terrible at the job.
1. Cameron's strength and leadership looks to have taken a big hit and he must be a smaller figure now on the world stage
2. Miliband's 'weak' tag seems less appropriate
3. but his quotes on R5 were all about Cameron's leadership sounded like partisan pettyness given the issues.
4. The news then went on to report apparant Napalming of a school in Aleppo and an interview with the head about the children killed.
5. This looks to be the video on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594
Not a proud moment.
"Farron, the elected party president, was amongst 14 LD abstentions. 9 others LD MPs voted against."
So over half the party voted in favour? Surely political suicide for those not already dead.
The Lib Dem Party conference should be a hoot!
It is unprecedented for a Prime Minister to be defeated on the floor of the HoC on a matter of such foreign policy significance, importance and gravity and if the Prime Minister cannot command the support of the Commons then his position has been severely undermined.
There is no gainsaying the scale of the personal defeat that the Prime Minister has suffered to his standing, authority and credibility with 39 Coalition MP's voting against the government.
As a firm supporter of this Prime Minister it is with a heavy heart that I say that Mr Cameron must consider his position.
It is my firm hope that he stays and it is most likely that he will but there must be a possibility that the Prime Minister quietly and soberly reflects with colleagues and family and drives to the palace next week to tender his resignation.
"they find a more civilized way to confront international outrages."
Please will you give some examples that will work quickly, be backed by most nations and will be effective and not ignored.
Let's hope that Obama acts and that the West delivers a firm message to the regime. Britain may be free riding on that action - but if Obama backslides I fear for all of us.
"What I find really strange are the people who claim that chemical weapons are no worse than conventional munitions, and that they are not WMD."
I find the idea that some ways of killing your enemies are more civilized than others preposterous. Bit if there was a scale top of the list would be those weapons that kill and maim the most people. Top of the list would be nuclear.
How can any sane person claim that a chemical weapon that killed two hundred in Syria is worse than an atomic bomb that killed 100.000 in Hiroshima?
"Last night's vote was a crushing blow to David Cameron's authority. He's seriously weakened as a result."
Totally disagree, he acknowledged the will of Parliament and is not barred from returning to the subject if matters in Syria do not improve or worsen.
The weakness from all sides was that nobody and no party came up with an end-point scenario which would not look like another Iraq2 and would improve the lives of all the people of Syria.
It is noticeable that Obama has not described an end-point scenario and that is the fatal weakness in his positioning - also the people of the USA do not fancy another failed intervention that will result in more US bodies being flown home.
Did tim ever answer me if this was Ed M's Kosovo?
Tim Montgomerie@TimMontgomerie1h
An Australian MP tells me: The nation of Churchill looks more like the nation of Chamberlain this morning.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges32m
Just heard Ed Miliband giving a lecture on leadership. Seriously.
PoliticsHome@politicshome19m
Paddy Ashdown: "In all my years of serving my country I don't think I've ever felt more depressed, nor more ashamed."
There is a line. ABC weapons are on one side of it, conventional weapons are on the other.
It is the indiscrimiante and disproportionate nature of ABC weapons that make them unacceptable.
I said last night befor the vote that Ian Martin comment below was correct.
"Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
The British parliament did not find Camerons position credible .
Jeremy Bowen @BowenBBC
govt shelling into the rebel held suburbs in #Damascus this morning. Huge column of smoke about 15 mins ago, still drifting across sky
How did that happen?
I am pleased that parliament was strengthened at the expense of the executive.
I think this means we will be much, much less likely to get involved in future military actions unless there is a clear and direct UK interest. Good.
I am pleased Dave stated clearly his belief and principles, was voted down, and then graciously accepted the outcome. His authority is damaged in the short term but his integrity is enhanced. He lost honourably.
I am pleased it is utterly apparent that Miliband said one thing to Dave then hours later reneged. He emerges looking a bit less weak but also a shit, untrustworthy on matters of national importance and happy to play party politics with matters as serious as war. He won disreputably.
I am pleased Dave got a wake up call that he needs to keep his party on-side and cannot take his backbenchers or the yellow peril for granted.
Overall a very good night for the UK.
"My position is clear: any action that our country supports must be legal, legitimate and effective. Our country must not make the same mistakes that happened ten years ago."
Is that a sorry for the last Labour Government?
I suspect the media are over-egging the effect of last night's vote. Most people are against us lurching into another war. The shadow of Blair's lies hung over the House of Commons last night.
David Cameron may have got a slap on the face but unlike Blair, he didn't lie to the country and he has agreed to follow the wishes of the country. If however there are further atrocities in Syria, I hope journalists will ask Ed Bland to explain how his position has worked to prevent them!
Perhaps it is time for Britain to reflect upon the fact that we are no longer an Imperial power and we should not be first to rush to police the rest of the world. Let the Saudi's or Israel sort out Syria. No-one thinks any less of Angela Merkel because Germany is not getting involved in Syria. We are a small island of 63 million people off the west coast of Europe. Time for us to act like that. However if it was Gib or the Falklands, that would be a different matter as they are UK territories.
Usually we are in accord, but here I must disagree with you. Cameron would be doing the country a disservice if he resigned on a non-resigning matter.
The most important matter for this country is regaining economic stability and improving, growth, education and employment. Syria is a sideshow that threatened to divert his attention from what is really important for the people of the UK.
If the violent factionalism in Syria and the rest of the Middle East spreads to the UK Muslims, then he will have to deal with that problem first before matters outside the UK.
This is entirely according to Dan Hodges, Miliband's most implacable foe in the media for three years. Miliband has sounded conspicuously cautious notes all the way through, but this has been gratefully accepted by tories as the new orthodoxy.
Make no mistake this is very clearly a matter for the Prime Minister to consider his position and of course economic matters are vastly important but the "Clapham Terminal Omnibus" awaits those who think themselves indispensable !!
"Please will you give some examples that will work quickly, be backed by most nations and will be effective and not ignored."
DavidL wrote an excellent post yesterday morning where he suggested making outrages like this a matter of personal responsibility.
If as was suspected this was the work of Assad's brother then it could be agreed that he has to be handed in to face trial together with his associates. This would surely command international agreement and it could be agreed that no country would supply weapons until he'd been handed over for trial. Much easier to get China and Russia onboard and it could be applied to powerful countries like Israel too.
Totally agree, honesty will always be respected. Dissembling looks like using a situation purely for political purposes and not caring about the effect on or the wishes of the electorate.
I wonder if this is another sign of the leadership having a hard time adjusting to the threat from UKIP. They failed to consider that MPs from places like Boston and Skegness where people are making very noisy threats to their jobs may have developed hearing loss.
For one thing, from your comments above I assume you think that all arms limitations treaties should be torn up, as they are all equally uncivilised?
After all, last night's vote has just torn up the chemical weapons' treaties.
Perhaps you should read the following excerpts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I#Casualties
.
The Independent also quotes Dan Hodges, at length. The entire story has come from him.
With no other alternative given.
And in the meantime, people die.
Mildly surprised Cameron lost the vote. Given this wouldn't have authorised immediate military action and a second vote was needed it seems a bit odd. However, I was against an intervention, so that's a plus at least.
The spectacle of two identical motions, one Government, one Opposition, a lot of bad blood and two defeats is not a splendid sight.
Which of Labour's MPs were effective ministers under Blair or Brown, can Miliband afford to drop them or not? Burnham out of his depth as a Minister - look at this evidence to Francis and weep.
Beats the Jackson Trial into a cocked hat.
Doncha just love the pic of all the dead kids on Guidos site..all mocked up and played by the Young Syrian Drama Academy students of course
Makes you proud to be British.
I disagree with the degree of gravity of the vote - please could you expand on that point. The Gov. motion was always subject to a later vote and also depended on the findings of the UN inspectors - lots of hurdles to jump before any action was agreed. It would however have sent a mild shot across the bows of Assad, but not as effective as a NATO or a UN vote.
Yes, nobody is indispensable but I do not think that Cameron will look at it that way, but of the importance of the work that may not get done if he left. It would a derogation of his greater responsibility if he resigned on on what was really a far less important and vital matter.
If not, a cynical person might wonder whether they were being honest about the goals of the military action they were proposing.
So I guess you want the existing chemical weapons' treaties ripped up? Or should we actually try to make sure they are enforced, and prevent the use of these hideous weapons?
If we can get treaties for other weapons to be banned as well, good. But that will only be effective if we ensure existing treaties are enforced.
Which we are not.
Hopefully one thing to come out of this mess will be a process whereby nations and leaders can be held to account for their use. We are nowhere near that yet.
The fact is that Cameron rightly never made it a confidence matter. There is no evidence that his ministry has lost the confidence of the House and there is no reason to resign. Indeed, no-one is calling on him to do so. I believe his Syrian policy was misguided and had I been in the House I hope I'd have had the strength to have followed my convictions and voted No to both motions, as that's how I'd have voted from behind this computer. I would not, however, be calling for him to resign as a result of losing the vote. On the contrary. At the moment, he's the best PM the country could have.
On the one hand as PM of a Coalition government Cameron is more detached from some aspects of government but on the Syria issue both the PM and Clegg couldn't have pinned their colours closer to the mast and indeed the whole ship !! .... and neither initially could Miliband. However as soon a choppier waters developed Ed struck different colours and shipped into the first available lifeboat !!
Sorry Nick but whilst it's common knowledge that I don't rate Ed his recent behaviour has been appalling. Frankly he's a sh*t and little wonder his brother couldn't stand to serve under him and buggered off from parliament and distanced himself to New York !!
@adamboultonSKY Perhaps yes. But Geoffrey Howe once reminded me that " nothing is ever as good or as bad as it looks on the day." Wise words
Will reply to points made later.
I too, if I had been an MP last night, would have voted against both motions as both were incomplete. You cannot say you are going to do something without saying what the end result will/might be. Sloppy thinking on all sides of all parties in the HoC. Too much looking at what Blair did/did not do in 2003 and not enough original thinking.
"Thirty Conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the government's motion."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Besides which, 'Government' MPs would apparently include the Lib Dems.
The comments in that piece are almost entirely pleased with the result, and many consider it a victory for the people/Parliament rather than a defeat for Cameron.
This morning's headlines are atrocious for Cameron and this is just start. There is no way he can continue long-term with no authority.
Well done everyone.
"I find your position on this whole thing not just preposterous, but sick; your comments on Assad yesterday were a sign of a person who has no real idea of the issues.
Having worked in Beirut several times and having many friends there my knowledge of the situation is better than on many more domestic issues!
The first time I went it was occupied by Syria and to get from my hotel to the studio I had to pass three Syrian checkpoints. The soldiers were so badly paid they'd let anyone through for a packet of fags
I was told two members of my crew were the Christian phalangists who had planted a bomb on the Palestinian school bus killing 42 children. An event credited with starting the second of the Lebanese civil wars.
Despite being occupied by Syria our labourers were all Syrian. They were picked up by coach at 4 AM and driven across the Beka to arrive at the studio for 7. They were returned at the end of the day arriving home at midnight. Their pay was half that of the Lebanese and Syrians were the only Muslims ever used on any of the shoots I worked on.
There's no point in going on. It's a very different part of the world and the way they do things is quite different from anything most here would recognize.
Sorry Henry, I only made it that far before collapsing in giggles....
Jamie Foster @1jamiefoster
Weakness? EIther you want Blair's presidential style leadership or you want Cameron's respect for Parliament. Make your choice.
Sorry Roger, I only made it that far before collapsing in giggles....
Every one of them shoukd be given a framed pic of the dead children, gassed by Assad.
Their deaths will go unacknowledged so that cowardly men and women in the UK can sleep at nights .
Weak.
We are the laughing stock of the world today.