"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.
Just because it is a different part of the world, Assad should be allowed to use chemical weapons against his own population?
Interesting though Henry G's article's are, surely today's focus should be on who is going to take over from Cameron now that the Tory Party has turned it's leader into a Lame Duck?
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.
If Cameron is forced out Theresa May wipes the floor with anyone else at the moment. The question would be who would bother standing against her.
Interesting though Henry G's article's are, surely today's focus should be on who is going to take over from Cameron now that the Tory Party has turned it's leader into a Lame Duck?
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.
Sure, he can. He didn't need the war, and the war didn't need him. He can still win confidence votes and he can still pass budgets. That's all a PM needs.
Interesting though Henry G's article's are, surely today's focus should be on who is going to take over from Cameron now that the Tory Party has turned it's leader into a Lame Duck?
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.
Golly - what enormous hyperbole. I've only read PB and Twitter and think its a bump in road given that most of the population were already against action. That's what the HoC is meant to do - he lost a vote - it wasn't a confidence one.
Sorry, he didn't just "lose a vote!" This isn't some local difficulty like over education policy or europe.
Cameron recalled Parliament on a matter of war and peace and was defeated by his own MP's who do not trust him to be acting for the good of the nation.
There could be no more serious blow to a Prime Ministers authority.
We can see from the posts of JackW this morning and Richard Nabavi last night that this has done the most terrible damage to Cameron and sorry, but I tend to take them more seriously than you.
The fall out from this will go on for weeks/months and whether Cameron goes immediately or clings on for a year or so, ultimately we will look back and see this was the moment his leadership/Prime Ministership effectively ended.
Jamie Foster @1jamiefoster Weakness? EIther you want Blair's presidential style leadership or you want Cameron's respect for Parliament. Make your choice.
For good or ill, Blair won his vote in Parliament on going to war.
Jamie Foster @1jamiefoster Weakness? EIther you want Blair's presidential style leadership or you want Cameron's respect for Parliament. Make your choice.
Indeed - As EiT succintly put it: "Putting the vote parliament and going along with the result represents an almost unprecedented outbreak of good government."
It is a very broad piece covering all parties and I've even worked in an Indy referendum angle as well.
But I didn't write it last night as
1) I was tired 2) I wanted to see the wider implications this morning. 3) As an advocate of intervention in Syria I was very disappointed in the actions of Ed Miliband and some coalition MPs. My piece last night would have made Michael Gove's response look tame. I don't think a piece calling those who voted against action in Syria, traitorous pig dogs and Galloway lite, Genocide excusing, Dictator apologists would have been fitting for PB
I am pleased that parliament decided we won't get involved in another country's civil war .... I am pleased that parliament was strengthened at the expense of the executive..... 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.
Patrick I agree with all your points. I also think that Mr Manson's article deserves another showing at a time that is not dominated by a major event.
Interesting though Henry G's article's are, surely today's focus should be on who is going to take over from Cameron now that the Tory Party has turned it's leader into a Lame Duck?
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.
If Cameron is forced out Theresa May wipes the floor with anyone else at the moment. The question would be who would bother standing against her.
There is an obvious choice. George Osborne.
I would put Osborne chances of taking over before GE 2015 as very very slim.
Jamie Foster @1jamiefoster Weakness? EIther you want Blair's presidential style leadership or you want Cameron's respect for Parliament. Make your choice.
For good or ill, Blair won his vote in Parliament on going to war.
And he lied over the 45 mins dossier - as @MrJones noted Blairquo's Ghost.
Assad is probably laughing his socks off this morning.. as he orders more gas.. Well done everyone.
I doubt it. I don't think Assad has much control over Syrian military forces. I have read/heard many commentators with knowledge of how power is exercised in Syria, saying that it is highly possible that others within the regime are out of control. There have already been instances where rebel forces have been found with chemical weapons, including a case reported in May when such weapons were being taken out through Turkey. If you want to back the bombing of Syrian bases, which could then help release more of these chemical weapons to terrorists, then you will have to accept the consequences. Most of the military experts I have heard talk about military strikes have warned about rushing into action, when not enough is known about the potential risks of such action.
I wrote (long before either vote) yesterday that a theoretical defeat for Cameron would not be the same as in most other circumstances.
The likes of Nick Robinson can trot out Labour's lines, but there are fundamental differences regarding this vote to others, with which they seek to compare it: 1) Cameron does not have an outright majority. He is a coalition leader. 2) This was never a confidence issue. We'd have an awful lot of prime ministers if any defeat in the Commons always led to resignation. 3) This would've gone through pre-Iraq. The spectre of Blair's lies lingered like Banquo's ghost. 4) This is what's meant to happen. The MPs cast their votes according to their judgement, and the PM respects their answer. We could almost call it democracy.
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats). I think most people will be glad with the decision taken.
Now we'll have to wait and see what the US does, and whether more chemical weapons get used.
What I do know is that at every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.
This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.
Chanak 1922, Norway 1940. What happened to Lloyd George and Chamberlain's premierships? Cameron will in all likelihood survive yesterday's defeat, but this is now a lame duck ministry.
tim - douglas hurd is not one of your faves I gather due to failures to act in Kosovo - is that true? How does Ed M score on your moral compass please using that view as your baseline?
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats).
That's the odd thing about it, isn't it? A majority probably supported the essence of both the motions, but they both went down because neither party would vote for the other party's text. And the Americans think they have gridlock...
This affair has clearly damaged Cameron, but it has also shown how unfit Ed Miliband is to be Prime Minister. Who saw fit to play parliamentary games rather than decide on a position of principle.
I'm still struggling to work out if labour supported or opposed military action, they don't clearly know themselves.
Mr. Town, I'm not sure it's valid to compare the vote yesterday with the Norway debate during the Second World War.
I'm not arguing that the situations are directly comparable, merely pointing out that when a Prime Minister has failed to take his own side with him on issues of war and peace, it has tended to damage his administration severely.
tim - douglas hurd is not one of your faves I gather due to failures to act in Kosovo - is that true? How does Ed M score on your moral compass please using that view as your baseline?
Hurd acted rather a lot to help the Serbs in Bosnia, he was out of office and earning money in Belgrade by the time Kosovo came around.
Mr. Observer, 'failed to back'? The majority of those also 'failed to oppose'. You can't claim abstenstions as being for or against either side. By that definition it could be said of almost every MP that a majority of the electorate 'failed to back' them.
Did any MP achieve an absolute majority at the last election? I thought not but stand to be corrected. They'd have needed something like a 60%+ share on an 80%+ turnout.
Looking at the highest majorities on that list, Witney for example, Cameron received 58.8% on a turnout of 73.3% = 43.1% of the electorate.
In the safest Labour seats, such as Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, the winning MP typically receives a higher share of the vote, 64.5% in Brown's case, but on a lower turnout of 62.2% = 40.1% of the electorate.
Thus you are correct that no MP received support from a majority of their electorate.
At the other extreme, Lucas won Brighton Pavillion with 31.3% on a turnout of 70.0%, which is just 21.9% of the electorate, but the record is surely held by the Lib Dem Simon Wright in Norwich South, who with 29.4% on a 64.6% turnout was elected with the votes of just under 19% of his electorate.
Are the hardcore Tory backbenchers who continually hurt Cameron now satisfied? That must be the question in the Tory ranks. Will they go on weakening him throughout this parliament or will they make some kind of peace with the leadership. They probably know they can't win the next GE without Cameron.
The obvious conclusion is that they don't want Labour to benefit from their intransigence and that if Cameron throws them a bone, they will support him. It'd need to be a big bone, but what can Cameron do?
When Tony Blair had problems with his left-wing backbenchers he threw them the fox-hunting bone, and that kept them sweet. But Cameron's rebels are for more powerful than Jeremy Corbyn and co were to Blair: Cameron has no majority, and is reliant on his rebels' votes. Blair wasn't. Also, the Tory rebels represent the UKIP-wing, a much more threatening political force than Blair's equivalent branch of SWP; by carrying on arrogantly snubbing his right-wing Cameron could strengthen the UKIP wing, and cause seat-carnage at the next GE, losing lots of Con/Lab marginals.
So he needs to throw the rebels a bone. And herein lies the problem: he can't - his Lib Dems partners won't accept it. If Cameron did something dramatic with the EU or brought in another traditional Tory policy it could break the coalition. So he is stuck.
Given this difficult position, I actually think he has done a very good job. Last night aside, he is done remarkably well to keep a collegiate and working coalition on the road.
But if wants to win the next GE he needs to square his issues with his backbenchers. It won't be easy. Blair was far more charming and self-aware vis a vis his own rebels whereas Cameron has appeared arrogant and dismissive. He needs to accept that they don't like the coalition partnership and Lib Dem influence. They need to accept that - as leader - a prgamatic approach to policy has been the only we he can govern. If he wants to win the next GE as leader he needs to turn the fire of his rebels against Labour and away from him. It won't be easy.
The posters so far on PB seem to think this is about Cameron, and the lost vote. The vote was on whether we should attempt to stop a madman from gassing his own people.. Cameron lost the vote.. Assad won the day. Labour will endure the shame when more young bodies are laid out..and they will be, because they gave Assad permission to carry on killing. We took the teeth out of the British lion yesterday .. Shame on us
I still don't know who I felt more sorry for last night. Cameron for losing his political credibility and authority or the PB Hodges on here who minutes before the Cameron vote was lost was crowing that Red Ed had lost his vote because dozens of Labour MP's hadn't voted .Little did they know at the time they were making their leaders forthcoming disaster sound even worse as he was about to lose his vote despite the dozens of missing voting Labour MP's.
Though it took a few of the PB Hodges about fifteen minutes to regain their composure, there were some fine efforts of "it was a victory for Dave and a disaster for Ed" being posted.......good efforts chaps!
tim - douglas hurd is not one of your faves I gather due to failures to act in Kosovo - is that true? How does Ed M score on your moral compass please using that view as your baseline?
Hurd acted rather a lot to help the Serbs in Bosnia, he was out of office and earning money in Belgrade by the time Kosovo came around.
You seems really rather confused tim. You were on Cameron's side for intervention, so yesterday was a disaster for your neo-con dreams.
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats).
That's the odd thing about it, isn't it? A majority probably supported the essence of both the motions, but they both went down because neither party would vote for the other party's text. And the Americans think they have gridlock...
Surely if Cameron had accepted the Labour amendment motion then it would have passed the House with nearly 500 votes in favour.
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats).
That's the odd thing about it, isn't it? A majority probably supported the essence of both the motions, but they both went down because neither party would vote for the other party's text. And the Americans think they have gridlock...
Surely if Cameron had accepted the Labour amendment motion then it would have passed the House with nearly 500 votes in favour.
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats).
That's the odd thing about it, isn't it? A majority probably supported the essence of both the motions, but they both went down because neither party would vote for the other party's text. And the Americans think they have gridlock...
Surely if Cameron had accepted the Labour amendment motion then it would have passed the House with nearly 500 votes in favour.
I can't quite understand why he didn't do so.
Given that the labour motion was effectively the same as the government motion, why didn't miliband support it after saying in private he would?
Jamie Foster @1jamiefoster Weakness? EIther you want Blair's presidential style leadership or you want Cameron's respect for Parliament. Make your choice.
For good or ill, Blair won his vote in Parliament on going to war.
And he lied over the 45 mins dossier - as @MrJones noted Blairquo's Ghost.
I'm not defending Blair, but on a point of fact he cannot be derided as Presidential when he gave a vote to Parliament on exactly the same sort of issue - whether to start a war with another country.
It would have been "Presidential" if he'd used the Royal Prerogative to start the war and then came to give a statement to the House afterwards.
"This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too."
The face of Ed Miliband - cautious, wanting to see concrete evidence every step of the way, since action was first talked about, has been the face of the country. That's why his position prevailed and Cameron's lost.
tim - douglas hurd is not one of your faves I gather due to failures to act in Kosovo - is that true? How does Ed M score on your moral compass please using that view as your baseline?
Hurd acted rather a lot to help the Serbs in Bosnia, he was out of office and earning money in Belgrade by the time Kosovo came around.
You seems really rather confused tim. You were on Cameron's side for intervention, so yesterday was a disaster for your neo-con dreams.
You haven't understood anything you've posted all week, I see nothing has changed. But your desire to see every world event through what I think is as strange as your desire to post about political events you can't grasp.
You don't even know what your talking about anymore, and have got so completely wrapped up in tribalism you've utterly lost the plot...
The posters so far on PB seem to think this is about Cameron, and the lost vote. The vote was on whether we should attempt to stop a madman from gassing his own people.. Cameron lost the vote.. Assad won the day. Labour will endure the shame when more young bodies are laid out..and they will be, because they gave Assad permission to carry on killing. We took the teeth out of the British lion yesterday .. Shame on us
If you feel so strongly about it , get up fom your seat in the piazza and join the jihadists in the al-Nusra Front.
"There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In it’s aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
"This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too."
The face of Ed Miliband - cautious, wanting to see concrete evidence every step of the way, since action was first talked about, has been the face of the country. That's why his position prevailed and Cameron's lost.
Forget Cameron's and Ed's face....does anyone have a picture of Micky Goves face as he was shouting across the Lobby that some Tory MP's were "traitors" and "Assad supporters" in a very high pitched squeal.
It goes without saying that this article was written and submitted many hours before the vote last night. Who Ed reshuffles is neither here nor there compared to the gravity of the Prime Minister's defeat of his government's motion.
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats).
That's the odd thing about it, isn't it? A majority probably supported the essence of both the motions, but they both went down because neither party would vote for the other party's text. And the Americans think they have gridlock...
Surely if Cameron had accepted the Labour amendment motion then it would have passed the House with nearly 500 votes in favour.
I can't quite understand why he didn't do so.
Right, that's why I reckon they must have cocked up the vote counting and failed to forsee how many Tories would hide in the toilets until the voting was over. Presentationally it's easy to see how he'd rather pass his own motion rather than looking like Ed Miliband's bitch, although with a bit of imagination there were a couple of promising ways he could have played it.
Indeed, Mr. Manson. As suggested downthread it would probably be good if the article could be given an airing at a later date, given the dominant story today.
"Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway."
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats).
That's the odd thing about it, isn't it? A majority probably supported the essence of both the motions, but they both went down because neither party would vote for the other party's text. And the Americans think they have gridlock...
Surely if Cameron had accepted the Labour amendment motion then it would have passed the House with nearly 500 votes in favour.
I can't quite understand why he didn't do so.
Given that the labour motion was effectively the same as the government motion, why didn't miliband support it after saying in private he would?
There's barely a phrase different between them - its EdM on his OLS bandwagon.
Not a very smart move. If he stops being a Labour cuckoo in Miliband's nest he just becomes another Tory hack and there's no shortage of those
Now he is a Thatcherite cuckoo in the Cameroon nest. The problem for him, there are dozens of them about so he has lost his niche. Not that he was Labour or has been Labour for quite a while. He was the freak show for the right wing readers to agree with when he wrote yet another article attacking "his" party.
There is no doubt that Cameron's authority has been seriously undermined - for now. Leaving aside his willingness to authorise military action - a judgement call I currently disagree with but nonetheless a reasonable and considered position - there can be no question that Cameron made a number of errors; in recalling parliament urgently, thus creating a narrative of a rush to war; in misreading the mood of his backbenchers; in not having a proper plan and not having realised the impact Iraq would have on the debate; in not recognising both the inevitability of Miliband's ultimate rejection of military action (Miliband could never have carried his party with him) and Miliband's willingness to play politics over such a grave matter.
In the long term the impact on Cameron will depend on a number of factors. If Obama stays his hand and the situation in Syria deteriorates, with the Assad regime emboldened and more chemical atorcities committed, Cameron could bring this back to parliament and emerge victorious, the iron-willed leader whose judgement has been vindicated. If evidence emerges that it was not the Assad regime responsible for the latest atrocity (very unlikely but not impossible), he will look even more foolish. Other events could overtake this - for better or worse. A leadership challenge could emerge, bringing forward the endgame before the Syria situation plays itself out. The polls could swing violently against Cameron, as they did ruthlessly against Brown when he was exposed as being weak. The media could decide to see Miliband in a new light (the current narrative needs refreshing). The right wing press could withdraw their support - only ever lukewarm - in the hope of installing a "proper" right winger who they can support loudly against Miliband (gay marriage being as much an issue as Syria); or they might swing behind Cameron as the only realistic bulwark against a snap election and the intolerable result of a Labour victory. So many unknowns.
Re. No end game - did Chamberlain expect that the defeat of Germany would mean the USSR/Russia pushing further westwards and southwards: coupled with economic bankruptcy, loss of power & influence in South America, the Mediterranean, near East. Followed by collapse of the formal empire in India and elsewhere?
The longer term consequences of this are very significant and include:
* Cameron will never trust Miliband again. This episode reflects dreadfully on Ed Miliband and has poisened the well irreversibly. If he survives, Cameron will be merciless. The establishment's doubts about Miliband's credibility and suitability for office will only be strengthened
* Cameron's authority within his party is severely damaged; I noted several years ago that Cameron's meteroric rise and distance from his backbenchers was likely to be his undoing; so it will prove
* Parliament has been restored to its rightful place as a check on executive power; an event that should be celebrated
...(part 2 to follow)
One final observation: however this plays out, there is no justification for claiming that the Conservative rebels, Ed Miliband or anyone else has blood on their hands. Atrocities committed in Syria are the responsibility of those who commit them. Opposition to military action, particularly at this point, is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and considered view, formed with the preservation of life in mind no less than the decision to wage war. If the reports of Michael Gove's behaviour last night are accurate they speak very poorly of him indeed. We must all live with our conscience; and those who voted against military action will doubtless feel something like guilt if more atrocities are committed, as surely those who supported the Iraq war feel guilt each time they read of the latest indiscriminate massacre. That is human nature. But the question whether or not to intervene in another country's affairs often presents hobson's choice; neither option is attractive, and unfortunately we only get to see the consequences (good and bad) of the path taken, not of the path left untrod.
"Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed."
Cameron knew full well that Miliband was leaving himself plenty of wiggle room all the way along the process, with his focus on the 'exhaustion' of every avenue. The whole desperate move to embrace more and more conditions by Cameron, desperately pressed in by Obama's artificial timetable, was symptomatic of his weak position to begin with.
The posters so far on PB seem to think this is about Cameron, and the lost vote. The vote was on whether we should attempt to stop a madman from gassing his own people.. Cameron lost the vote.. Assad won the day. Labour will endure the shame when more young bodies are laid out..and they will be, because they gave Assad permission to carry on killing. We took the teeth out of the British lion yesterday .. Shame on us
If you feel so strongly about it , get up fom your seat in the piazza and join the jihadists in the al-Nusra Front.
Or he could donate to charities helping the casulties of a brutal civil war.
Not a very smart move. If he stops being a Labour cuckoo in Miliband's nest he just becomes another Tory hack and there's no shortage of those
His mother was able to intervene twice yesterday in the debate once in Camerons speech and another in Millibands, both were very civil towards her . Unlike his response today .
Jamie Foster @1jamiefoster Weakness? EIther you want Blair's presidential style leadership or you want Cameron's respect for Parliament. Make your choice.
For good or ill, Blair won his vote in Parliament on going to war.
And he lied over the 45 mins dossier - as @MrJones noted Blairquo's Ghost.
As much as I'd like it to be true, Blair didn't lie over the 45 minutes claim. Every inquiry and investigation has found him innocent on that. He and Big Bad Al were cleared over the sexing-up of the dossier too. I think John Scarlett was found at fault on that.
Blair was very clever with his words and left an impression of imminent destruction of the UK, but didn't lie.
However, about 99% of the public believe that he did lie, and I suppose that's the important bit. And that's the bit that caused the cathartis-vote over Syria.
As you haven't credited anyone with this post do I take it the words are your own?
Ouch
"There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In it’s aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
Thursday, 29th of August 2013. A day of shame for the British Labour Party' It allowed a madman to go on killing his own people, and not a whimper of protest from the defanged Lion.
tim - douglas hurd is not one of your faves I gather due to failures to act in Kosovo - is that true? How does Ed M score on your moral compass please using that view as your baseline?
Hurd acted rather a lot to help the Serbs in Bosnia, he was out of office and earning money in Belgrade by the time Kosovo came around.
Links?
"Serbian government officials are convinced that Lord Hurd, the former foreign secretary, played a key role in shoring up Slobodan Milosevic in power by mediating a billion-dollar privatisation deal which provided the indicted war criminal with his war chest for his Kosovo campaign in 1998-99. A central element in Mr Milosevic's defence strategy in the Hague will be to disclose the long list of western statesmen and officials who were eager to negotiate with him in the 1990s.
Lord Hurd, who as Douglas Hurd was British foreign secretary until 1995, was especially criticised in Bosnia and Croatia for his perceived pro-Serb bias in the mid-90s.
As part of the Serbian investigation into alleged embezzlement by the Milosevic regime, the Serbian authorities are also looking into the billon-dollar privatisation deal brokered by Lord Hurd amid suspicions than tens of millions of pounds of the proceeds were siphoned off by Mr Milosevic and his associates."
"‘I hope that doesn’t become the moment when we turn our back on the world’s problems,’ said the Chancellor. Me too. But if you were to trace the decline of our belief in our ability (rather than our willingness) to solve the world’s military problems then you would have to feature the Spending Review in which Osborne decided to cut the military budget by the same amount that he wanted to increase the international aid budget. That was the one where we decided to go without aircraft carrier capability for a decade or more, because money was too tight. Especially if you wanted to up the aid budget by a third. You may think that Osborne had the right priorities, but such decisions speak as loudly as parliamentary votes about Britain and its role in the world."
£600 million to divert HS2 around Alderley Edge, £150 million to keep aircraft carrier coverage, and Osborne chose the former.
That article hits the nail on the head. Many Conservative and UKIP voters don't see the logic of disbanding a fifth of our armed forces on the one hand, while pursuing interventionist policies overseas, on the other.
On balance, I think the Commons made the right decision last night.
I still don't know who I felt more sorry for last night. Cameron for losing his political credibility and authority or the PB Hodges on here who minutes before the Cameron vote was lost was crowing that Red Ed had lost his vote because dozens of Labour MP's hadn't voted .Little did they know at the time they were making their leaders forthcoming disaster sound even worse as he was about to lose his vote despite the dozens of missing voting Labour MP's.
Though it took a few of the PB Hodges about fifteen minutes to regain their composure, there were some fine efforts of "it was a victory for Dave and a disaster for Ed" being posted.......good efforts chaps!
I feel sorry for the Syrians who have been slaughtered by their government.
Ed has purposely sought to damage the United Kingdom and - through luck more than charm - has succeeded. He must whistfully look back at the success tht his fore-fathers achieved in the Belgian Communist Party (prior to legging it to "regressive" England).
A total shyte: An amoral fool with a poor understanding (or value) for life. To make Blair look human is some achievement....
What a depressing day for Britain. Whilst it's certainly very arguable that parliament effectively took the right decision last night, what cannot be denied is that, even if they did, they took it for the wrong reasons and in a very damaging way. What's more, the prospect of Ed Miliband as PM is looking ever more worrying - his behaviour has been appalling, and it is becoming ever clearer how his peculiar combination of weakness, dithering, and lack of principle, combined with a certain tactical brilliance, will be very dangerous.
The best commentary I've seen is that of the excellent Janan Ganesh:
Finally, the vote did the Commons as a whole little credit. Amid all the self-congratulation and the hyping up of last night’s vote as a glory for parliamentary sovereignty, it should be remembered that MPs effectively ruled out the very principle of military action in Syria. Whether one is for or against intervention – and I am narrowly against – this is a rather extraordinary abdication from a Nato member and nuclear power. Any decision to go in or stay out should have been made on contingent arguments about the likelihood of success, the risks of mission creep, the implications for relations with Russia, Iran and other powers. Disavowing intervention a priori will strike Britain’s allies as a very strange signal to send
The posters so far on PB seem to think this is about Cameron, and the lost vote. The vote was on whether we should attempt to stop a madman from gassing his own people.. Cameron lost the vote.. Assad won the day. Labour will endure the shame when more young bodies are laid out..and they will be, because they gave Assad permission to carry on killing. We took the teeth out of the British lion yesterday .. Shame on us
If you feel so strongly about it , get up fom your seat in the piazza and join the jihadists in the al-Nusra Front.
Or he could donate to charities helping the casulties of a brutal civil war.
As you haven't credited anyone with this post do I take it the words are your own?
Ouch
"There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In it’s aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
The longer term consequences of this are very significant and include:
* Cameron's authority within his party is severely damaged; I noted several years ago that Cameron's meteroric rise and distance from his backbenchers was likely to be his undoing; so it will prove
* Parliament has been restored to its rightful place as a check on executive power; an event that should be celebrated
...(part 2 to follow)
One final observation: however this plays out, there is no justification for claiming that the Conservative rebels, Ed Miliband or anyone else has blood on their hands. Atrocities committed in Syria are the responsibility of those who commit them. Opposition to military action, particularly at this point, is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and considered view, formed with the preservation of life in mind no less than the decision to wage war. If the reports of Michael Gove's behaviour last night are accurate they speak very poorly of him indeed. We must all live with our conscience; and those who voted against military action will doubtless feel something like guilt if more atrocities are committed, as surely those who supported the Iraq war feel guilt each time they read of the latest indiscriminate massacre. That is human nature. But the question whether or not to intervene in another country's affairs often presents hobson's choice; neither option is attractive, and unfortunately we only get to see the consequences (good and bad) of the path taken, not of the path left untrod.
Yes, but....
As he has shown on previous occasions, Cam is in his element on the spot at the dispatch box. He was again yesterday.
And beyond the politics of it, the case he made, repeatedly, was that this was a focused police action on a violation of international law as it stands. You break the law/use chemical weapons and there are consequences. He was quite careful to limit the intention to this one policing action. He got the Iraq thing, the dodgy dossier thing.
I thought he was quite focused and measured.
So the MPs (and the Brits) don't think that it is our job, even as a member of the Security Council, to police international law violations.
Despite my severe and many reservations about any military action, that's not a message I think I am comfortable with.
This comment on the Dan Hodges comments sums up my view completely and its one I seen repeated on various other comments pages.
"This was a grievous blow to the authority of David Cameron"
"Nonsense. I am not a fan of Cameron, but what happened last night was to Cameron's enormous credit. The PM in this country has the power to go to war without parliamentary consent. He didn't even need to bother asking them. But ask them he did, and when they disagreed with him, he graciously abided by their decision. What do you think Blair would have done? "
Last night's vote was a crushing blow to David Cameron's authority. He's seriously weakened as a result.
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.
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.
It's like they're trying to downplay the seriousness of the attacks so that we don't have to do anything.
That was not the point being made. The point was that there appears to be a logic failure by those supporting intervention whereby they claim that 300 people killed by chemical weapons is somehow worse than 100,000 killed by conventional weapons. If 100,000 killed by bombs, guns and breadknives did not trigger intervention then why should 300 killed by chemical weapons?
Are you really claiming that as long as they only used conventional weapons we would sit by happily sit by and let 200,000 or 500,000 or a million die?
" I have rarely met, let alone interviewed, a figure as pitiful as Ben Johnson. The infamy of Seoul, where Johnson was found guilty of doping after the most eagerly awaited sprint final in Olympic history, is merely a sideshow in a life that has vacillated between the tragic, the tawdry and the downright bizarre.
It is the story of a man whose desire for social acceptance has constantly led him down the path of self-destruction. The story of an embittered former champion who feels he was unjustly treated by the doping authorities, despite admitting to taking drugs in industrial quantities. Ultimately, it is the story of a man whose lack of schooling and catastrophic absence of selfesteem has caused him to place his trust in those around him, with often devastating results.
The inability of Johnson to think for himself, or take responsibility for his actions, can be seen both in his childhood in Jamaica and in the curious half-life he has lived since that Olympic 100 metres final a quarter of a century ago. Sometimes, the consequences have been surreal. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article3855591.ece
During 1993, John Reid spent three days in a luxury hotel on the shores of Lake Geneva at the expense of Radovan Karadzic, the bouffant-haired war criminal. Neither Reid nor his fellow guest, David Clark MP, mentioned this trip in the register of members' interests though Reid did declare two other Balkan freebies that year, both paid for by Milosevic's government.
OGH's very own 'black-market spiv': He'll sell you anything you want, so long as the quality and consistency is not questioned. A man without a life; a life without a soul....
As you haven't credited anyone with this post do I take it the words are your own?
Ouch
"There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In it’s aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
Roger they are not her own words just plagarism.
Dearie me - it was an extra quote from an article I'd previously linked to - you're so desperate to rubbish me that now I'm a plagiarist. Give it a rest or make a better argument.
"‘I hope that doesn’t become the moment when we turn our back on the world’s problems,’ said the Chancellor. Me too. But if you were to trace the decline of our belief in our ability (rather than our willingness) to solve the world’s military problems then you would have to feature the Spending Review in which Osborne decided to cut the military budget by the same amount that he wanted to increase the international aid budget. That was the one where we decided to go without aircraft carrier capability for a decade or more, because money was too tight. Especially if you wanted to up the aid budget by a third. You may think that Osborne had the right priorities, but such decisions speak as loudly as parliamentary votes about Britain and its role in the world."
£600 million to divert HS2 around Alderley Edge, £150 million to keep aircraft carrier coverage, and Osborne chose the former.
The HS2 / Osborne thing is a smear, as I have proved passim. Just look at the 'dogleg' near Leeds to see how stupid the claim is.
The aircraft carrier situation was a direct consequence of several Labour policies. Throughout the last four or five years of the Labour government, the aircraft carriers rarely carried British fixed-wing aircraft. Indeed, we had to rely on the Spanish and Indian Harriers to train the ships' crews as the RAF were using most of the Harriers in Afghanistan.
And the third carrier was sitting at Portsmouth sans engines from about 2005.
The longer term consequences of this are very significant and include:
* Cameron's authority within his party is severely damaged; I noted several years ago that Cameron's meteroric rise and distance from his backbenchers was likely to be his undoing; so it will prove
* Parliament has been restored to its rightful place as a check on executive power; an event that should be celebrated
...(part 2 to follow)
One final observation: however this plays out, there is no justification for claiming that the Conservative rebels, Ed Miliband or anyone else has blood on their hands. Atrocities committed in Syria are the responsibility of those who commit them. Opposition to military action, particularly at this point, is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and considered view, formed with the preservation of life in mind no less than the decision to wage war. If the reports of Michael Gove's behaviour last night are accurate they speak very poorly of him indeed. We must all live with our conscience; and those who voted against military action will doubtless feel something like guilt if more atrocities are committed, as surely those who supported the Iraq war feel guilt each time they read of the latest indiscriminate massacre. That is human nature. But the question whether or not to intervene in another country's affairs often presents hobson's choice; neither option is attractive, and unfortunately we only get to see the consequences (good and bad) of the path taken, not of the path left untrod.
Yes, but....
As he has shown on previous occasions, Cam is in his element on the spot at the dispatch box. He was again yesterday.
If anyone was in his element yesterday at the dispatch box, it was Miliband.
The result was unexpected certainly to the Labour Party. I did see Cameron was reading from [ or referring to ] a prepared text. But Ed had the presence of mind at that moment to get the "royal prerogative" concession exactly at the moment when Cameron was at its weakest.
I accept the Labour front bench knew the result [ as did the Tories ] a couple of minutes before it was read out. Noticeable was the calm [ i.e. no euphoria ] on the Labour front bench. That must been planned. Not a single Shadow mInister went out of line. Calm and dignified, whatever they were feelong inside.
If the Middle East is a threat to UK interests why was Cameron's government cutting defence capability?
There is an argument to say that with the end in sight in Afghan, and no immediate threat to Britain elsewhere, it is precisely these kind of policing actions that HMF should be organised to address.
The number of outright Tory rebels (voting against) was actually rather limited, namely 30...so as rebellions go, it was hardly a mass one. Of course that doesn't include the abstentions: I trust our learned professor from Milan will do the number-crunching.
Last night's vote was a crushing blow to David Cameron's authority. He's seriously weakened as a result.
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.
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.
It's like they're trying to downplay the seriousness of the attacks so that we don't have to do anything.
That was not the point being made. The point was that there appears to be a logic failure by those supporting intervention whereby they claim that 300 people killed by chemical weapons is somehow worse than 100,000 killed by conventional weapons. If 100,000 killed by bombs, guns and breadknives did not trigger intervention then why should 300 killed by chemical weapons?
Are you really claiming that as long as they only used conventional weapons we would sit by happily sit by and let 200,000 or 500,000 or a million die?
We did in Rwanda, where the body count was at least 5 times Iraq and Syria COMBINED.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 37s French President Francois Hollande: UK vote does not change France's resolve on need for Syria action http://bbc.in/15Dvq2u
dear god, it says something when a left-wing Frenchmen has more principles than us.
It brought home the fact that our politics is too clever for its own good. Too full of clever lawyers and political advisers. They probably - in the moment - reached the correct result, based on all the evidence and the complexity of striking Iran. But outside of the lawyerly, clever, political semantics world they all live in, the reality is they have decided to say they don't want to get involved when a megalomaniac gasses his people.
It's like being in a school yard watching a big, hard bully beating the crap out of some poor, defenseless victim before killing him, and each day walking past as the bully kills another, and another, and another. But never getting involved because it isn't your fight.
What a depressing day for Britain. Whilst it's certainly very arguable that parliament effectively took the right decision last night, what cannot be denied is that, even if they did, they took it for the wrong reasons and in a very damaging way. What's more, the prospect of Ed Miliband as PM is looking ever more worrying - his behaviour has been appalling, and it is becoming ever clearer how his peculiar combination of weakness, dithering, and lack of principle, combined with a certain tactical brilliance, will be very dangerous.
The best commentary I've seen is that of the excellent Janan Ganesh:
Finally, the vote did the Commons as a whole little credit. Amid all the self-congratulation and the hyping up of last night’s vote as a glory for parliamentary sovereignty, it should be remembered that MPs effectively ruled out the very principle of military action in Syria. Whether one is for or against intervention – and I am narrowly against – this is a rather extraordinary abdication from a Nato member and nuclear power. Any decision to go in or stay out should have been made on contingent arguments about the likelihood of success, the risks of mission creep, the implications for relations with Russia, Iran and other powers. Disavowing intervention a priori will strike Britain’s allies as a very strange signal to send
Do you think, deep down, that Trident will ever go ahead after last night's vote ?
Politicians are behind the curve. The people are getting perfectly accustomed for Britain not strutting their stuff. We have ruled the world. We are quite comfortable being what we are.
Maybe, Cameron was right getting rid of the Harriers for scrap. We couldn't have sent any Carriers to the Med.
Can I just knock on the head the seductive but wrong-headed argument that there's nothing special about chemical weapons, or that Assad's use of them is no business of Britain and our allies?
Of course it is true that there are plenty of other nasty things - bombing of innocent civilians, for example - which the international community doesn't regard as red lines which must never be crossed. What's different about chemical and biological weapons is that it's a line we can and do hold. Virtually the entire world has signed up to the Geneva Protocol, which, let us not forget, was established as long ago as 1925. For the best part of a century, it is a red line which has almost never been crossed. In all that time, in all the awful wars which have taken place, there have been very few cases where chemical weapons have been deliberately used to kill even military personnel, let alone civilians.
Sure, there are lots of other things it would be nice to eliminate, but the fact that we haven't been able to eliminate indiscriminate bombing, land mines, or the bayoneting of women and children is not an argument for giving up on one of the few really nasty things we have been able to virtually eliminate. The Geneva Protocol is one of the most successful international conventions of all time: the entire world has agreed that no-one, not even the most heinous tyrants, can with impunity subject men, women and children to an awful death by poison gas or other chemical or biological weapons.
Whether that line can be held any longer remains to be seen after last night. We may have opened another dismal compartment of Pandora's Box, one which since 1925 had remained pretty tightly shut.
If the Middle East is a threat to UK interests why was Cameron's government cutting defence capability?
Like everything to do with the public-sector a major moving-force is a pensions black-hole. That is why defence exenditure is being maintained around-or-about current nominal-levels whilst force structures are being cut.
A third of the Defence-budget is spent on incomes and pensions. Another third is spent on running costs and support facilities. These are the elements that have been pruned back. The equipment budget (including UOR expenditures brought 'in-house') are due to rise in real-terms up-until 2023.* Capabilites are being maintained; man-power is not.
* Only Norway has seen similar promises of increased defence-expenditure.
The longer term consequences of this are very significant and include:
* Cameron's authority within his party is severely damaged; I noted several years ago that Cameron's meteroric rise and distance from his backbenchers was likely to be his undoing; so it will prove
* Parliament has been restored to its rightful place as a check on executive power; an event that should be celebrated
...(part 2 to follow)
Yes, but....
As he has shown on previous occasions, Cam is in his element on the spot at the dispatch box. He was again yesterday.
If anyone was in his element yesterday at the dispatch box, it was Miliband.
The result was unexpected certainly to the Labour Party. I did see Cameron was reading from [ or referring to ] a prepared text. But Ed had the presence of mind at that moment to get the "royal prerogative" concession exactly at the moment when Cameron was at its weakest.
I accept the Labour front bench knew the result [ as did the Tories ] a couple of minutes before it was read out. Noticeable was the calm [ i.e. no euphoria ] on the Labour front bench. That must been planned. Not a single Shadow mInister went out of line. Calm and dignified, whatever they were feelong inside.
I disagree (but then I would).
I thought Cam won the battle but lost the war. I couldn't really follow what EdM was saying and that wasn't for want of trying.
But we are where we are - Cam made many mistakes in the run up to the debate: he should have enlisted EdM much earlier on; he shouldn't have recalled parliament early; he should have spelled out as clearly as he did yesterday the fact that any military involvement would constitute a one-off policing action to ensure tyrants can't violate international law with impunity and that on those terms GB should be involved in that policing action.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 37s French President Francois Hollande: UK vote does not change France's resolve on need for Syria action http://bbc.in/15Dvq2u
dear god, it says something when a left-wing Frenchmen has more principles than us.
Aren't you against intervention ? Anyway Britain has done the hard yards in Afghanistan and Iraq, if other countries now take up the difficult and unpopular, but necessary (In my view) actions for Syria perhaps that'll be a good thing.
Last night's vote was a crushing blow to David Cameron's authority. He's seriously weakened as a result.
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.
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.
It's like they're trying to downplay the seriousness of the attacks so that we don't have to do anything.
That was not the point being made. The point was that there appears to be a logic failure by those supporting intervention whereby they claim that 300 people killed by chemical weapons is somehow worse than 100,000 killed by conventional weapons. If 100,000 killed by bombs, guns and breadknives did not trigger intervention then why should 300 killed by chemical weapons?
Are you really claiming that as long as they only used conventional weapons we would sit by happily sit by and let 200,000 or 500,000 or a million die?
That was exactly the point at least one person was making last night - that chemical weapons were not WMDs. A hideous, sick position to take, and one that goes against international opinion and reality.
There's no logic failure involved in those supporting intervention. The point is that there are existing treaties that treat chemical weapons as more serious, and rightly so IMHO. Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line.
Some people want us to turn a blind eye to the breaking of these treaties. That makes the treaties worthless; they may as well be ripped up.
Comments
Cameron recalled Parliament on a matter of war and peace and was defeated by his own MP's who do not trust him to be acting for the good of the nation.
There could be no more serious blow to a Prime Ministers authority.
We can see from the posts of JackW this morning and Richard Nabavi last night that this has done the most terrible damage to Cameron and sorry, but I tend to take them more seriously than you.
The fall out from this will go on for weeks/months and whether Cameron goes immediately or clings on for a year or so, ultimately we will look back and see this was the moment his leadership/Prime Ministership effectively ended.
Don't worry that thread is coming up.
It is a very broad piece covering all parties and I've even worked in an Indy referendum angle as well.
But I didn't write it last night as
1) I was tired
2) I wanted to see the wider implications this morning.
3) As an advocate of intervention in Syria I was very disappointed in the actions of Ed Miliband and some coalition MPs. My piece last night would have made Michael Gove's response look tame. I don't think a piece calling those who voted against action in Syria, traitorous pig dogs and Galloway lite, Genocide excusing, Dictator apologists would have been fitting for PB
Now back to writing this thread.
I also think that Mr Manson's article deserves another showing at a time that is not dominated by a major event.
The likes of Nick Robinson can trot out Labour's lines, but there are fundamental differences regarding this vote to others, with which they seek to compare it:
1) Cameron does not have an outright majority. He is a coalition leader.
2) This was never a confidence issue. We'd have an awful lot of prime ministers if any defeat in the Commons always led to resignation.
3) This would've gone through pre-Iraq. The spectre of Blair's lies lingered like Banquo's ghost.
4) This is what's meant to happen. The MPs cast their votes according to their judgement, and the PM respects their answer. We could almost call it democracy.
I'm against intervention, though was unimpressed with the way things turned out (with two identical but for the letterhead motions and two defeats). I think most people will be glad with the decision taken.
Now we'll have to wait and see what the US does, and whether more chemical weapons get used.
"The same can be said for the political party that I was a member of until late yesterday evening."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233350/miliband-was-governed-by-narrow-political-interests-not-the-national-interests-or-those-of-syrian-children/
What I do know is that at every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.
This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233350/miliband-was-governed-by-narrow-political-interests-not-the-national-interests-or-those-of-syrian-children/
Dan Hodges, the Blairite cuckoo that jumped out of the Miliband nest.
Cameron misread the mood of parliament and the country and made a political mistake. He did however show conviction.
Ed swung in the wind and sought political capital which he managed. I'm not sure he's the real gainer though.
I'm still struggling to work out if labour supported or opposed military action, they don't clearly know themselves.
Looking at the highest majorities on that list, Witney for example, Cameron received 58.8% on a turnout of 73.3% = 43.1% of the electorate.
In the safest Labour seats, such as Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, the winning MP typically receives a higher share of the vote, 64.5% in Brown's case, but on a lower turnout of 62.2% = 40.1% of the electorate.
Thus you are correct that no MP received support from a majority of their electorate.
At the other extreme, Lucas won Brighton Pavillion with 31.3% on a turnout of 70.0%, which is just 21.9% of the electorate, but the record is surely held by the Lib Dem Simon Wright in Norwich South, who with 29.4% on a 64.6% turnout was elected with the votes of just under 19% of his electorate.
The obvious conclusion is that they don't want Labour to benefit from their intransigence and that if Cameron throws them a bone, they will support him. It'd need to be a big bone, but what can Cameron do?
When Tony Blair had problems with his left-wing backbenchers he threw them the fox-hunting bone, and that kept them sweet. But Cameron's rebels are for more powerful than Jeremy Corbyn and co were to Blair: Cameron has no majority, and is reliant on his rebels' votes. Blair wasn't. Also, the Tory rebels represent the UKIP-wing, a much more threatening political force than Blair's equivalent branch of SWP; by carrying on arrogantly snubbing his right-wing Cameron could strengthen the UKIP wing, and cause seat-carnage at the next GE, losing lots of Con/Lab marginals.
So he needs to throw the rebels a bone. And herein lies the problem: he can't - his Lib Dems partners won't accept it. If Cameron did something dramatic with the EU or brought in another traditional Tory policy it could break the coalition. So he is stuck.
Given this difficult position, I actually think he has done a very good job. Last night aside, he is done remarkably well to keep a collegiate and working coalition on the road.
But if wants to win the next GE he needs to square his issues with his backbenchers. It won't be easy. Blair was far more charming and self-aware vis a vis his own rebels whereas Cameron has appeared arrogant and dismissive. He needs to accept that they don't like the coalition partnership and Lib Dem influence. They need to accept that - as leader - a prgamatic approach to policy has been the only we he can govern. If he wants to win the next GE as leader he needs to turn the fire of his rebels against Labour and away from him. It won't be easy.
The vote was on whether we should attempt to stop a madman from gassing his own people..
Cameron lost the vote..
Assad won the day.
Labour will endure the shame when more young bodies are laid out..and they will be, because they gave Assad permission to carry on killing.
We took the teeth out of the British lion yesterday .. Shame on us
Though it took a few of the PB Hodges about fifteen minutes to regain their composure, there were some fine efforts of "it was a victory for Dave and a disaster for Ed" being posted.......good efforts chaps!
I can't quite understand why he didn't do so.
Perhaps.
He lost a vote, but it's not as if he deliberately lied to the Commons to trick it into a war.
It would have been "Presidential" if he'd used the Royal Prerogative to start the war and then came to give a statement to the House afterwards.
"This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too."
The face of Ed Miliband - cautious, wanting to see concrete evidence every step of the way, since action was first talked about, has been the face of the country. That's why his position prevailed and Cameron's lost.
"There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In it’s aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
Not a very smart move. If he stops being a Labour cuckoo in Miliband's nest he just becomes another Tory hack and there's no shortage of those
"Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway."
Events dear boy, events.
In the long term the impact on Cameron will depend on a number of factors. If Obama stays his hand and the situation in Syria deteriorates, with the Assad regime emboldened and more chemical atorcities committed, Cameron could bring this back to parliament and emerge victorious, the iron-willed leader whose judgement has been vindicated. If evidence emerges that it was not the Assad regime responsible for the latest atrocity (very unlikely but not impossible), he will look even more foolish. Other events could overtake this - for better or worse. A leadership challenge could emerge, bringing forward the endgame before the Syria situation plays itself out. The polls could swing violently against Cameron, as they did ruthlessly against Brown when he was exposed as being weak. The media could decide to see Miliband in a new light (the current narrative needs refreshing). The right wing press could withdraw their support - only ever lukewarm - in the hope of installing a "proper" right winger who they can support loudly against Miliband (gay marriage being as much an issue as Syria); or they might swing behind Cameron as the only realistic bulwark against a snap election and the intolerable result of a Labour victory. So many unknowns.
...part 2 to follow
The longer term consequences of this are very significant and include:
* Cameron will never trust Miliband again. This episode reflects dreadfully on Ed Miliband and has poisened the well irreversibly. If he survives, Cameron will be merciless. The establishment's doubts about Miliband's credibility and suitability for office will only be strengthened
* Cameron's authority within his party is severely damaged; I noted several years ago that Cameron's meteroric rise and distance from his backbenchers was likely to be his undoing; so it will prove
* Parliament has been restored to its rightful place as a check on executive power; an event that should be celebrated
...(part 2 to follow)
One final observation: however this plays out, there is no justification for claiming that the Conservative rebels, Ed Miliband or anyone else has blood on their hands. Atrocities committed in Syria are the responsibility of those who commit them. Opposition to military action, particularly at this point, is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and considered view, formed with the preservation of life in mind no less than the decision to wage war. If the reports of Michael Gove's behaviour last night are accurate they speak very poorly of him indeed. We must all live with our conscience; and those who voted against military action will doubtless feel something like guilt if more atrocities are committed, as surely those who supported the Iraq war feel guilt each time they read of the latest indiscriminate massacre. That is human nature. But the question whether or not to intervene in another country's affairs often presents hobson's choice; neither option is attractive, and unfortunately we only get to see the consequences (good and bad) of the path taken, not of the path left untrod.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed."
Cameron knew full well that Miliband was leaving himself plenty of wiggle room all the way along the process, with his focus on the 'exhaustion' of every avenue. The whole desperate move to embrace more and more conditions by Cameron, desperately pressed in by Obama's artificial timetable, was symptomatic of his weak position to begin with.
Are Tories allowed to be members of the Party ?
#2011census Detailed characteristics on: Household structures; Children; Proficiency in English now available from bit.ly/yI1EaE
"Everyone* should watch video. It is horrific. What kind of regime would be happy to do that?"
The Americans?
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/06/03/napalm-girl_sq-b8c442f3fc73fcb4e7b337493e85a59415adf3a4.jpg
Unlike his response today .
Blair was very clever with his words and left an impression of imminent destruction of the UK, but didn't lie.
However, about 99% of the public believe that he did lie, and I suppose that's the important bit. And that's the bit that caused the cathartis-vote over Syria.
As you haven't credited anyone with this post do I take it the words are your own?
Ouch
"There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In it’s aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
It allowed a madman to go on killing his own people, and not a whimper of protest from the defanged Lion.
On balance, I think the Commons made the right decision last night.
The rest don't matter in the long run
A total shyte: An amoral fool with a poor understanding (or value) for life. To make Blair look human is some achievement....
The best commentary I've seen is that of the excellent Janan Ganesh:
Finally, the vote did the Commons as a whole little credit. Amid all the self-congratulation and the hyping up of last night’s vote as a glory for parliamentary sovereignty, it should be remembered that MPs effectively ruled out the very principle of military action in Syria. Whether one is for or against intervention – and I am narrowly against – this is a rather extraordinary abdication from a Nato member and nuclear power. Any decision to go in or stay out should have been made on contingent arguments about the likelihood of success, the risks of mission creep, the implications for relations with Russia, Iran and other powers. Disavowing intervention a priori will strike Britain’s allies as a very strange signal to send
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2013/08/britain-abdicates-its-role/
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/3674_refugee_charities_call_on_government_to_help_resettle_syrian_refugees
As he has shown on previous occasions, Cam is in his element on the spot at the dispatch box. He was again yesterday.
And beyond the politics of it, the case he made, repeatedly, was that this was a focused police action on a violation of international law as it stands. You break the law/use chemical weapons and there are consequences. He was quite careful to limit the intention to this one policing action. He got the Iraq thing, the dodgy dossier thing.
I thought he was quite focused and measured.
So the MPs (and the Brits) don't think that it is our job, even as a member of the Security Council, to police international law violations.
Despite my severe and many reservations about any military action, that's not a message I think I am comfortable with.
"This was a grievous blow to the authority of David Cameron"
"Nonsense. I am not a fan of Cameron, but what happened last night was to Cameron's enormous credit. The PM in this country has the power to go to war without parliamentary consent. He didn't even need to bother asking them. But ask them he did, and when they disagreed with him, he graciously abided by their decision. What do you think Blair would have done? "
Are you really claiming that as long as they only used conventional weapons we would sit by happily sit by and let 200,000 or 500,000 or a million die?
" I have rarely met, let alone interviewed, a figure as pitiful as Ben Johnson. The infamy of Seoul, where Johnson was found guilty of doping after the most eagerly awaited sprint final in Olympic history, is merely a sideshow in a life that has vacillated between the tragic, the tawdry and the downright bizarre.
It is the story of a man whose desire for social acceptance has constantly led him down the path of self-destruction. The story of an embittered former champion who feels he was unjustly treated by the doping authorities, despite admitting to taking drugs in industrial quantities. Ultimately, it is the story of a man whose lack of schooling and catastrophic absence of selfesteem has caused him to place his trust in those around him, with often devastating results.
The inability of Johnson to think for himself, or take responsibility for his actions, can be seen both in his childhood in Jamaica and in the curious half-life he has lived since that Olympic 100 metres final a quarter of a century ago. Sometimes, the consequences have been surreal. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article3855591.ece
I would love to read Hodges' article the day after Labour wins the election explaining why it is bad for Ed Miliband !
Wee-Timmy,
OGH's very own 'black-market spiv': He'll sell you anything you want, so long as the quality and consistency is not questioned. A man without a life; a life without a soul....
The aircraft carrier situation was a direct consequence of several Labour policies. Throughout the last four or five years of the Labour government, the aircraft carriers rarely carried British fixed-wing aircraft. Indeed, we had to rely on the Spanish and Indian Harriers to train the ships' crews as the RAF were using most of the Harriers in Afghanistan.
And the third carrier was sitting at Portsmouth sans engines from about 2005.
But don't let facts get in the way of your rants.
The result was unexpected certainly to the Labour Party. I did see Cameron was reading from [ or referring to ] a prepared text. But Ed had the presence of mind at that moment to get the "royal prerogative" concession exactly at the moment when Cameron was at its weakest.
I accept the Labour front bench knew the result [ as did the Tories ] a couple of minutes before it was read out. Noticeable was the calm [ i.e. no euphoria ] on the Labour front bench. That must been planned. Not a single Shadow mInister went out of line. Calm and dignified, whatever they were feelong inside.
French President Francois Hollande: UK vote does not change France's resolve on need for Syria action http://bbc.in/15Dvq2u
dear god, it says something when a left-wing Frenchmen has more principles than us.
Janan Garesh is right.
I feel depressed over last night.
It brought home the fact that our politics is too clever for its own good. Too full of clever lawyers and political advisers. They probably - in the moment - reached the correct result, based on all the evidence and the complexity of striking Iran. But outside of the lawyerly, clever, political semantics world they all live in, the reality is they have decided to say they don't want to get involved when a megalomaniac gasses his people.
It's like being in a school yard watching a big, hard bully beating the crap out of some poor, defenseless victim before killing him, and each day walking past as the bully kills another, and another, and another. But never getting involved because it isn't your fight.
Politicians are behind the curve. The people are getting perfectly accustomed for Britain not strutting their stuff. We have ruled the world. We are quite comfortable being what we are.
Maybe, Cameron was right getting rid of the Harriers for scrap. We couldn't have sent any Carriers to the Med.
Of course it is true that there are plenty of other nasty things - bombing of innocent civilians, for example - which the international community doesn't regard as red lines which must never be crossed. What's different about chemical and biological weapons is that it's a line we can and do hold. Virtually the entire world has signed up to the Geneva Protocol, which, let us not forget, was established as long ago as 1925. For the best part of a century, it is a red line which has almost never been crossed. In all that time, in all the awful wars which have taken place, there have been very few cases where chemical weapons have been deliberately used to kill even military personnel, let alone civilians.
Sure, there are lots of other things it would be nice to eliminate, but the fact that we haven't been able to eliminate indiscriminate bombing, land mines, or the bayoneting of women and children is not an argument for giving up on one of the few really nasty things we have been able to virtually eliminate. The Geneva Protocol is one of the most successful international conventions of all time: the entire world has agreed that no-one, not even the most heinous tyrants, can with impunity subject men, women and children to an awful death by poison gas or other chemical or biological weapons.
Whether that line can be held any longer remains to be seen after last night. We may have opened another dismal compartment of Pandora's Box, one which since 1925 had remained pretty tightly shut.
A third of the Defence-budget is spent on incomes and pensions. Another third is spent on running costs and support facilities. These are the elements that have been pruned back. The equipment budget (including UOR expenditures brought 'in-house') are due to rise in real-terms up-until 2023.* Capabilites are being maintained; man-power is not.
* Only Norway has seen similar promises of increased defence-expenditure.
Who's there?
Dan Hodges.
Dan Hodges who?
Ah....that's politics.
I thought Cam won the battle but lost the war. I couldn't really follow what EdM was saying and that wasn't for want of trying.
But we are where we are - Cam made many mistakes in the run up to the debate: he should have enlisted EdM much earlier on; he shouldn't have recalled parliament early; he should have spelled out as clearly as he did yesterday the fact that any military involvement would constitute a one-off policing action to ensure tyrants can't violate international law with impunity and that on those terms GB should be involved in that policing action.
I don't think we've heard the end of Syria.
Interested to see what the US does.
There's no logic failure involved in those supporting intervention. The point is that there are existing treaties that treat chemical weapons as more serious, and rightly so IMHO. Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line.
Some people want us to turn a blind eye to the breaking of these treaties. That makes the treaties worthless; they may as well be ripped up.