What on earth is he wittering on about? Does he not realise he is finished and so is the UK's reputation as an important international player. Who in god's name will take any notice of anything he has to say now?
The man is a complete fool and totally in denial about what his party has done to him.
How many of the countries in the region speak for their people? Have you not noticed that things are ever so slightly volatile in the Middle East and North Africa right now? I actually do not know what compelling evidence is in this case. That is the whole point. I am afraid that it is not for us to decide. It has to be left to the international community. That does not mean giving Russia and China veto, but it does mean ensuring that you have the widest possible coalition of support and the most watertight of cases. To get involved in a country such as Syria without taking such a painstaking route would, I believe, cause even greater harm than standing by, as painful as that may be. I hope you accept that this is a genuinely held belief, just as I accept that yours is. We just do not agree, I'm afraid.
Yes, I am very aware that the Middle East and North Africa is volatile at the moment. That is rather condescending of you.
The volatility is why letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered in the region is such a bad idea. As I have said passim, there is no 'right' answer to this.
I would be interested to know what the 'international community' can do about it whilst there is a stalemate in the UNSC.
2) Israel was wrong to use white phosphorous. Hopefully diplomatic pressure can be put on them not to use it again in the future (and the same pressure on the Palestinians, who also have used it). Such pressure can work - see (2). Why bomb when you can persuade?
So the Israeli military gets to break these treaties and nothing happens whilst some unknown force in Syria breaks them and we kill some more Syrian civilians to make us feel better. What a warped world view you have.
That's not what I'm saying. Firstly, the problem in Syria is pressing: chemical weapons have been used recently, and they could be used again at any time. Secondly, there are diplomatic avenues to be used in respect to Israel; that is hardly 'nothing happening'. Thirdly, the potential for harm in Syria is orders of magnitude greater.
I'm not going to insult you just because I disagree with you.
What diplomatic avenues were used, may I ask ? Israel has been given carte-blanche to do whatever it likes. That is what irks the Muslim world so much. The sheer hypocrisy.
Iran allegedly makes nuclear bombs [ no proof, sounds familiar ]. Sanctions.
Israel possesses nuclear bombs. Nothing happens. They get more aid. Even the Egyptian murderers get $1.3bn in aid not to fight Israel.
Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (nor is India or Pakistan, for that matter); Iran is and has been for over forty years.
So, logically , what you are saying is this: If Iran came out of NNPT, you will have no problem with it. Iran also knows taht, I am sure. Maybe, they are not producing a bomb, perhaps ?
A hideous over-reaction to yesterday's events. But exactly as I predicted.
If there is going to be no punishment for their use, why not use them?
Escalation will continue.
On the contrary. That was their response immediately after the attack nor is it very likely to be the first time they have been involved in chemical weapons.
One must therefore move on to consider the second component of the US claim, that not only has sarin been used, but that it has been used by Assad's forces. It is in this respect, at least publicly so far, that the US has produced little if any evidence to support its claim, other than to suggest that as the rebels don't have sarin, its use must therefore have been by Assad. This assumption however may be false.
For example, just two weeks ago security forces in neighbouring Iraq announced the capture of an alleged al Qaeda cell engaged in the manufacture of sarin. The al Nusra Front, long reported to be at the core of the most effective anti Assad Syria rebel forces, is integrally linked to the same al Qaeda group to which the alleged Iraqi terrorists belong.
Similarly, in neighbouring Turkey the week before, police arrested a number of Syrian al Nusra suspects, reported by the Turkish media to be in possession of sarin. Turkey is a strong supporter of Syria's rebels however, and the sarin story quickly disappeared from the Turkish media - just as also happened recently to coverage of Turkey's current anti-government protests.
To this picture must be added the comments of Carla del Ponte, a leading member of the UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged use of CW in Syria. The commission has yet to report, but on 6 May del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, stated that there was strong evidence of the use of sarin by Syria rebels.
There is then, contrary to the US claims, ample evidence to suggest that Syria's rebels have access to sarin, or the capability to produce or acquire it. Obama himself implicitly acknowledged this in his "red line" speech of August 2012, when he stated that the red line was intended not only for Assad, but for the rebels too - suggesting his intelligence services considered this a credible possibility.
What on earth is he wittering on about? Does he not realise he is finished and so is the UK's reputation as an important international player. Who in god's name will take any notice of anything he has to say now?
The man is a complete fool and totally in denial about what his party has done to him.
What an absurd hyperbolic response to yesterdays happenings. LOL!
I see Sean Fear has joined UKIP. Has he mentioned this before. Seems like big pb news to me.
tim suggests below that Cameron could have won if he'd waited till Monday. Can you think why he didn't? Feeling gung-ho? Or worse did he think that MPs would be too eager to get back to their holidays?
Craig Woodhouse @craigawoodhouse 8m Labour source says there is a sense of "shock" over last night and that "no one wanted it to be a defeat". So why whip against govt?
Has anyone heard about the intelligence "evidence" that was supposed to be de-classified in the US ? Or, they also cannot tell us where they saw the evidence, Fox or CBS ?
It is quite absurd of George Osborne to wail that Britain will have to do some hard thinking about its place in the world when he has already done that thinking and made those decisions for us.
Billions for welfare and HS2 while he hands soldiers returning from Afghanistan their P45s.
It is the politicians who have to do the hard thinking.
As Paddy Ashdown said this morning, with last nights vote, the need for our armed services will become diminished over the coming years so unfortunately there will be lots more P45s handed out. We will just have a basic home defence force.
To this picture must be added the comments of Carla del Ponte, a leading member of the UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the alleged use of CW in Syria. The commission has yet to report, but on 6 May del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor, stated that there was strong evidence of the use of sarin by Syria rebels.
There is then, contrary to the US claims, ample evidence to suggest that Syria's rebels have access to sarin, or the capability to produce or acquire it. Obama himself implicitly acknowledged this in his "red line" speech of August 2012, when he stated that the red line was intended not only for Assad, but for the rebels too - suggesting his intelligence services considered this a credible possibility.
You take sides in Syria then you had better like the consequences.
Thanks for that Mick.
So the JIC said that the main reason they believe the attack was by the Syrian Government was because the rebels lacked the access to or capability of using Chemical Weapons but here we have the UN themselves - the people actually doing the investigation saying there is strong evidence that the rebels are using Sarin.
Makes the JIC and government arguments seem even weaker than they did yesterday.
I must be the only person whose opinion of David Cameron has gone up today. From a low base, admittedly.
Also, Miliband got slightly over-excited with his comments about Cameron being reckless etc. A more magnanimous tone, "PM was trying to do the right thing but misjudged" etc would have been better.
Though Ed's latest comments about stepping up efforts for solutions in Syria do seem more along those lines.
Has anyone heard about the intelligence "evidence" that was supposed to be de-classified in the US ? Or, they also cannot tell us where they saw the evidence, Fox or CBS ?
If you think that is the extent of US intelligence gathering, you must have been living under a rock these past few months.
How many of the countries in the region speak for their people? Have you not noticed that things are ever so slightly volatile in the Middle East and North Africa right now? I actually do not know what compelling evidence is in this case. That is the whole point. I am afraid that it is not for us to decide. It has to be left to the international community. That does not mean giving Russia and China veto, but it does mean ensuring that you have the widest possible coalition of support and the most watertight of cases. To get involved in a country such as Syria without taking such a painstaking route would, I believe, cause even greater harm than standing by, as painful as that may be. I hope you accept that this is a genuinely held belief, just as I accept that yours is. We just do not agree, I'm afraid.
Yes, I am very aware that the Middle East and North Africa is volatile at the moment. That is rather condescending of you.
The volatility is why letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered in the region is such a bad idea. As I have said passim, there is no 'right' answer to this.
I would be interested to know what the 'international community' can do about it whilst there is a stalemate in the UNSC.
No condescension intended - apologies.
I don't know what the international community can do. And I agree that letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered is truly dreadful. But I also think any Western intervention in Syria without widespread support based on watertight proof of the Assad regime's guilt would produce consequences that were even more dreadful. The Middle East is a festering global sore that has developed over decades into what it is now, thanks in no small part to actions previously taken by many Western governments, including ours. Tragically, that is the inhibiting reality and the Syrian people are suffering for it.
Apparently consumer credit is starting to grow again. I didn't know that consumer credit had reduced by a quarter from its peak in 2008, which is good news, but - unless you are George Osborne and looking for re-election - it seems a bit early for it to be growing again, and at a stronger rate than earnings.
Has anyone heard about the intelligence "evidence" that was supposed to be de-classified in the US ? Or, they also cannot tell us where they saw the evidence, Fox or CBS ?
If you think that is the extent of US intelligence gathering, you must have been living under a rock these past few months.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
So the JIC said that the main reason they believe the attack was by the Syrian Government was because the rebels lacked the access to or capability of using Chemical Weapons but here we have the UN themselves - the people actually doing the investigation saying there is strong evidence that the rebels are using Sarin.
Makes the JIC and government arguments seem even weaker than they did yesterday.
Even more damning is that Obama had to make certain to include the rebels in his 'Red Lines'. Not something he would be likely to do if they really were incapable of procuring or using chemical weapons. Not all the Rebels are extremists but more than enough of them are not merely that but linked to Al-Qaeda. Those who think groups linked to Al-Qaeda are remotely likely to work within the confines of International Law and incapable of procuring or using extraordinarily dangerous weapons are staggeringly naive.
Assad has zero respect for human rights but that certainly didn't start with the civil war. He was always contemptuous of them. The problem for those advocating military intervention is that a great many of the Rebels also have zero respect for human rights. So a strategy entirely based on punitive military strikes aimed at the regime those Rebels are trying to overthrow has a pretty glaring flaw at the heart of it.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
Yes, I do think they are talking out of their arses. Which orifice did they use when they spouted their Iraq "evidence" ?
Yes, I am very aware that the Middle East and North Africa is volatile at the moment. That is rather condescending of you.
The volatility is why letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered in the region is such a bad idea. As I have said passim, there is no 'right' answer to this.
I would be interested to know what the 'international community' can do about it whilst there is a stalemate in the UNSC.
No condescension intended - apologies.
I don't know what the international community can do. And I agree that letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered is truly dreadful. But I also think any Western intervention in Syria without widespread support based on watertight proof of the Assad regime's guilt would produce consequences that were even more dreadful. The Middle East is a festering global sore that has developed over decades into what it is now, thanks in no small part to actions previously taken by many Western governments, including ours. Tragically, that is the inhibiting reality and the Syrian people are suffering for it.
Apology accepted; I was probably a little over-sensitive. Trying to argue on PB and write code at the same time is not necessarily a good idea. A few posts back I actually wrote some javascript in my PB window. I'll have to check I didn't put some of my PB comments in the code ...
As you said above, I understand your viewpoint, but disagree with it. I fear the long-term consequences will be severe unless we are lucky. Then again, it's hard to see a course of action that may not have severe consequences.
I must admit it does seem a rather more important issue to discuss heatedly than most of the things that get us excited on PB.
"Someone in Syria - probably Assad - has crossed a very obvious line"
Yes, someone has. And maybe it is Assad, but given the potential conseuences for the UK of an intervention in Syria of any kind and the probability that Western involvement will be used as a pretext for others, our enemies, to escalate and even expand the conflict we have to do better than "probably" before we start dropping bombs. We not only have to satisfy ourselves, we have to be seen to be taking every possible step to satisfy the widest possible coalition of international opinion and to explore every option short of an attack, no matter how impractical, before we take the military path. This is not Bosnia, this is not Rwanda, it is the heart of the most dangerous place on earth. Hasty, ill thought through action is likely to be much worse than taking no action at all.
But what evidence would make you accept that it was Assad? What is 'compelling evidence?'
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
We know they are worthless if used by our pals, so what are you wittering about. You say try to persuade Israel not to use again but are happy to bomb Syria. As said your double standards are astounding.
I must be the only person whose opinion of David Cameron has gone up today. From a low base, admittedly.
Also, Miliband got slightly over-excited with his comments about Cameron being reckless etc. A more magnanimous tone, "PM was trying to do the right thing but misjudged" etc would have been better.
Though Ed's latest comments about stepping up efforts for solutions in Syria do seem more along those lines.
I also think Cameron acted admirably and in time I think he will benefit from this. People will see that unlike Brown & Blair he is a man of principle and he is prepared to argue his case with honest information. His few words after the vote last night were full of merit and were words that Blair or Brown could never say
The recall of Parliament may have been bad short term politics but it did show his respect for Parliament and democracy. He lost the argument but he immediately moved on and took on parliaments will. Do we really want to return the Blair/Brown era where parliament was irrelevant. Posters on here who say Cameron is hopeless etc may wish to reflect on this.
MG..Mental Breakdown?..not me my friend..Shame on you too.. More dead bodies of kids on the way.. do enjoy..
Richard , we see it every day in many places , if our government was concerned we would be active every day. The fact they pick and choose the ones they want to bomb says it all , not just double standards in UK but hypocrisy of the highest order. UK bombing and killing some more Syrians will not fix anything or than salve the conscience of a few half wits. There are many sides in Syria and atrocities every day , chemical , bullet , bomb or whatever and nothing our power mad politicians do trying to show how great they are will make a difference. They ignore the majority of atrocities going on around the world so have no right to be pontificating on their selected few.
A reminder for those who still seem unaware that war crimes are not some new aspect or mere theory in this intractable civil war, but have been a growing threat to the civilian population since it started.
Syria Rebels 'Committing War Crimes', Amnesty Urges Caution Over Arming Opposition
Human rights campaigners have warned that Syrian opposition fighters are conducting summary killings, using child soldiers, sectarian violence and committing war crimes, as well as their pro-government foes, cautioning governments about arming the rebel groups.
The Amnesty International report, released this month on the second anniversary of the conflict, comes as David Cameron hinted for the first time that Britain could be prepared to go it alone to supply arms to Syria's rebels, defying a European arms embargo.
He, and the Foreign Secretary William Hague, have stressed the need to identify less-radical groups to combat the worrying rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Syria.
Assad is still conducting the lions share of the atrocities but that can hardly excuse the Rebels going down the same path. The spiral of savage conduct and desperate tactics is only going to increase with every attack and counterattack as the civil war is escalated.
Apparently consumer credit is starting to grow again. I didn't know that consumer credit had reduced by a quarter from its peak in 2008, which is good news, but - unless you are George Osborne and looking for re-election - it seems a bit early for it to be growing again, and at a stronger rate than earnings.
And Osborne is pumping up the housing bubble before house prices reached their long term average.
The big worry is that average earnings are stalled or are falling. If consumer credit is rising while that is happening, it is storing up a shedload of problems for further down the line.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
MG..Like I said .. enjoy the body count..because in this instance we could have made it a smaller number.. We have told a madman to caarry on with the slaughter...great stuff The frantic scrambling of the lefties on here in order to cover their shame is nauseating.
But what evidence would make you accept that it was Assad? What is 'compelling evidence?'
That wording will keep people arguing for some time, especially as the UN were not sent in to determine blame (apparently as a precondition from the Syrian government - but that's only AFAICR). People who do not want any action will just say that any evidence is not compelling - I bet that's the case even if the UN were to say it was Assad.
It was stupid wording. Or possibly more accurately, it was clever wording that Cameron did not fall for.
So we are left with no route forward, unless Russia receives a juicy enough bribe.
In the meantime, innocents die and other states will realise the chemical weapons treaties are worthless.
We know they are worthless if used by our pals, so what are you wittering about. You say try to persuade Israel not to use again but are happy to bomb Syria. As said your double standards are astounding.
Nope, can't see any double standards. If there is not an imminent threat and we have diplomatic relations at whatever level, use diplomacy to try to make the nation's government change their mind and follow the relevant treaties. Which is exactly what we are doing with North Korea's nuclear program, with limited success.
If there is an imminent threat and diplomacy will not work (either intra or extra the nation), then force may sadly be justifiable. That is where we are with Syria.
I don't want force to have to be used; it's just that a limited intervention could well be the least-worst option.
Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (nor is India or Pakistan, for that matter); Iran is and has been for over forty years.
So, logically , what you are saying is this: If Iran came out of NNPT, you will have no problem with it. Iran also knows taht, I am sure. Maybe, they are not producing a bomb, perhaps ?
My point was that it's not a double-standard to be holding one state to a treaty it has signed and not holding another state to a treaty it hasn't signed.
Fwiw, North Korea withdrew from the NNPT before developing its own bomb. I am certainly concerned about Iran's nuclear programme and believe the UN is right to impose sanctions in respect of it. The UNSC is charged with considering threats to international stability and I'd regard an Iranian atomic weapon as such, whether or not it was still a signatory of the NNPT.
This morning the British Chamber of Commerce increased its forecast of UK growth in 2013 to 1.3% (at least the good economic news keeps on coming...and that's what matters!).
But if growth this year has already reached 1% (0.3% 1Q and 0.7% 2Q) and many commentators are forecasting an acceleration for 3Q (0.8, 0.9??), isn't it more probable than possible that the rate this year will be very close to 2% and perhaps even slightly higher.
So why are the BCC and CBI (that recently released a similar forecast) being so 'pessimistic'?
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
Does the UN have a unanimous view on this matter? the UN comprises many disparate nations with many axes to grind. Please tell us what the UN's view is on this. Genuinely interested.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
One person in the UN, no matter how respected, still isn't enough. However, that's the crux of the matter in proving either case. There's clearly more evidence than just one UN Inspector and it is inconceivable that JIC weren't aware of it. The paucity of evidence to even make the case linking individuals in the regime directly to the attack also makes it likely that some of the material JIC are basing their conclusions on may also be from individuals and a scant few intercepts.
Some of us remember "curveball" and the immense damage he did. A far higher standard of proof than what has gone before is not some luxury but an absolute necessity.
This is getting beyond embarrassing! Ed Miliband is not just incapable of holding a credible Foreign Policy position for more than a few hours, he yet again fails to understand the longer term political implications of his own behaviour! His word like his Leadership is now not just politically weak, its basically worthless.
Twitter Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 24m Could someone explain what Ed Miliband actually thinks we should now do at the Security Council. Vote for military action?
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 37m We are permanent members of the Security Council and must fulfil our responsibilities.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 38m ITN: "Ed Miliband has urged the Government not to "wash its hands" of Syria". Seriously, what can you say about the guy.
I must be the only person whose opinion of David Cameron has gone up today. From a low base, admittedly.
Also, Miliband got slightly over-excited with his comments about Cameron being reckless etc. A more magnanimous tone, "PM was trying to do the right thing but misjudged" etc would have been better.
Though Ed's latest comments about stepping up efforts for solutions in Syria do seem more along those lines.
I also think Cameron acted admirably and in time I think he will benefit from this. People will see that unlike Brown & Blair he is a man of principle and he is prepared to argue his case with honest information. His few words after the vote last night were full of merit and were words that Blair or Brown could never say
The recall of Parliament may have been bad short term politics but it did show his respect for Parliament and democracy. He lost the argument but he immediately moved on and took on parliaments will. Do we really want to return the Blair/Brown era where parliament was irrelevant. Posters on here who say Cameron is hopeless etc may wish to reflect on this.
I also think more of Cameron than I did yesterday. He played this straight, made his case and it is in no way to his discredit that he lost.
I don't even think it was bad politics. He did have a choice to railroad this through but made the decision that doing so was unacceptable in the face of such widespread public opposition and scepticism.
I think he was wrong in his desire to get us involved in Syria but not in the way he handled the issue with regard to Parliament and public opinion.
It's good that Parliament is shown to have teeth to check the executive on such an important matter, and in so doing might well have altered our unwritten constitution vis a vis the "Royal Prerogative" in going in for "minor" wars and "police actions". It's going to be hard for a future PM to launch cruise missiles against similar threats in future without consulting Parliament. All quite probably no bad thing, and really one of the possible lasting effects of Blair in 2003, when Parliament went on trust and was sold a pup on WMD. It's a question now of the "Daltry doctrine" (so to speak) - won't get fooled again.
Yes, good that Cameron has bowed to the will of Parliament - he could hardly do otherwise, and I too struggle to imagine Blair or Brown saying "I get it", but it can't be glossed over that Cameron has shot himself in the foot. Ed was having a crap Summer poll lead dropping looking "not Papabile" so to speak, and Cameron goes and takes one of his best cards away from himself ie "bestriding the world stage looking like a PM" by picking an inept fight misreading the public and his own party (so much for "Tory warmongers" I suppose though).
Still I bet the Syrians sadly wish they had a functioning democracy like this where there is genuine debate and the leader says "OK I get it" when he loses a vote. Sadly we have to accept there is nothing practical from a force perspective we can do that will help their situation or (because outrage is not a foreign policy substitute) that will foster the UK's own interest.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
Does the UN have a unanimous view on this matter? the UN comprises many disparate nations with many axes to grind. Please tell us what the UN's view is on this. Genuinely interested.
Apologies Perdix, I was using UN as shorthand for the UN Inspectors working on the Syria issue. I had replied directly to a comment that included that reference hence the shorthand.
For the record the 'UN' seems incapable of agreeing on anything at all so clearly there is not one unified view. But I am simply pointing out that the JIC claim that there is no credible intelligence for the Opposition in Syria having access to chemical weapons flies in the face of the statements by those who should be in a position to know on the ground.
MG..Like I said .. enjoy the body count..because in this instance we could have made it a smaller number.. We have told a madman to caarry on with the slaughter...great stuff The frantic scrambling of the lefties on here in order to cover their shame is nauseating.
Oh, don't be so daft.
What, precisely, could 'we' have done to make the body-count smaller?
Do you really think "a madman" is bothered one way or the other what Britain thinks (or, for that matter, anyone else)?
If you believe Assad could be deterred from further chemical weapon use by air- and missile-strikes, why were they carried out, after Obama had laid down his red line?
This is getting beyond embarrassing! Ed Miliband is not just incapable of holding a credible Foreign Policy position for more than a few hours, he yet again fails to understand the longer term political implications of his own behaviour! His word like his Leadership is now not just politically weak, its basically worthless.
Twitter Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 24m Could someone explain what Ed Miliband actually thinks we should now do at the Security Council. Vote for military action?
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 37m We are permanent members of the Security Council and must fulfil our responsibilities.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 38m ITN: "Ed Miliband has urged the Government not to "wash its hands" of Syria". Seriously, what can you say about the guy.
MG..Like I said .. enjoy the body count..because in this instance we could have made it a smaller number.. We have told a madman to caarry on with the slaughter...great stuff The frantic scrambling of the lefties on here in order to cover their shame is nauseating.
Oh, don't be so daft.
What, precisely, could 'we' have done to make the body-count smaller?
Do you really think "a madman" is bothered one way or the other what Britain thinks (or, for that matter, anyone else)?
If you believe Assad could be deterred from further chemical weapon use by air- and missile-strikes, why were they carried out, after Obama had laid down his red line?
"Do you really think "a madman" is bothered one way or the other what Britain thinks (or, for that matter, anyone else)?"
If he is not bothered, why did the speaker of the Syrian parliament (that august democratic body) send a letter to our parliament asking our MPs to vote in a certain way?
This is getting beyond embarrassing! Ed Miliband is not just incapable of holding a credible Foreign Policy position for more than a few hours, he yet again fails to understand the longer term political implications of his own behaviour! His word like his Leadership is now not just politically weak, its basically worthless.
Twitter Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 24m Could someone explain what Ed Miliband actually thinks we should now do at the Security Council. Vote for military action?
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 37m We are permanent members of the Security Council and must fulfil our responsibilities.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 38m ITN: "Ed Miliband has urged the Government not to "wash its hands" of Syria". Seriously, what can you say about the guy.
The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.
As usual with Fitalass, it is always to do with Ed Miliband. She is conspicuous by her silence on the 50 or so Tory MPs including 2 Ministers and 30 or so Lib Dem MPs who failed to support their own governement.
Only one politician here remains consistent in both his words and his actions. Cameron pledged to bring any vote on military action to the floor of the HoC's, he kept that pledge. Ed Miliband on the other hand couldn't even be relied on to keep his word to Cameron on a cross party agreement on a response to the Syrian crisis for a few hours, never mind hold a credible position that long. BBC - Syria crisis: Robust response needed, David Cameron says BBC - Syria crisis: Miliband urges UK not to 'wash its hands'
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
One person in the UN, no matter how respected, still isn't enough. However, that's the crux of the matter in proving either case. There's clearly more evidence than just one UN Inspector and it is inconceivable that JIC weren't aware of it. The paucity of evidence to even make the case linking individuals in the regime directly to the attack also makes it likely that some of the material JIC are basing their conclusions on may also be from individuals and a scant few intercepts.
Some of us remember "curveball" and the immense damage he did. A far higher standard of proof than what has gone before is not some luxury but an absolute necessity.
JIC based their views, in their own words, on "open sources".
MG..Like I said .. enjoy the body count..because in this instance we could have made it a smaller number.. We have told a madman to caarry on with the slaughter...great stuff The frantic scrambling of the lefties on here in order to cover their shame is nauseating.
Richard, perhaps have a little break from posting for a while, before you say something that might take the decision out of your own hands.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
One person in the UN, no matter how respected, still isn't enough. However, that's the crux of the matter in proving either case. There's clearly more evidence than just one UN Inspector and it is inconceivable that JIC weren't aware of it. The paucity of evidence to even make the case linking individuals in the regime directly to the attack also makes it likely that some of the material JIC are basing their conclusions on may also be from individuals and a scant few intercepts.
Some of us remember "curveball" and the immense damage he did. A far higher standard of proof than what has gone before is not some luxury but an absolute necessity.
JIC based their views, in their own words, on "open sources".
I must be the only person whose opinion of David Cameron has gone up today. From a low base, admittedly.
Also, Miliband got slightly over-excited with his comments about Cameron being reckless etc. A more magnanimous tone, "PM was trying to do the right thing but misjudged" etc would have been better.
Though Ed's latest comments about stepping up efforts for solutions in Syria do seem more along those lines.
I also think Cameron acted admirably and in time I think he will benefit from this. People will see that unlike Brown & Blair he is a man of principle and he is prepared to argue his case with honest information. His few words after the vote last night were full of merit and were words that Blair or Brown could never say
The recall of Parliament may have been bad short term politics but it did show his respect for Parliament and democracy. He lost the argument but he immediately moved on and took on parliaments will. Do we really want to return the Blair/Brown era where parliament was irrelevant. Posters on here who say Cameron is hopeless etc may wish to reflect on this.
I also think more of Cameron than I did yesterday. He played this straight, made his case and it is in no way to his discredit that he lost.
I don't even think it was bad politics. He did have a choice to railroad this through but made the decision that doing so was unacceptable in the face of such widespread public opposition and scepticism.
I think he was wrong in his desire to get us involved in Syria but not in the way he handled the issue with regard to Parliament and public opinion.
Mr Cameron thought he had the votes when he went in. Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband had agreed this was going to pass, the debate and vote was just supposed to be window dressing for the voters, who opposed intervention in Syria 2:1.
My point was that maybe they do not have any more "hard" evidence either. Just their judgement.
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Oh so you just have a hunch they are talking out their arses?
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
But the letter from the JIC specifically says that much of their reasoning for saying the attack must be by the Government is because:
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
One person in the UN, no matter how respected, still isn't enough. However, that's the crux of the matter in proving either case. There's clearly more evidence than just one UN Inspector and it is inconceivable that JIC weren't aware of it. The paucity of evidence to even make the case linking individuals in the regime directly to the attack also makes it likely that some of the material JIC are basing their conclusions on may also be from individuals and a scant few intercepts.
Some of us remember "curveball" and the immense damage he did. A far higher standard of proof than what has gone before is not some luxury but an absolute necessity.
JIC based their views, in their own words, on "open sources".
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
If the PM&DPM had the confidence of their own parties on this issue, they wouldn't have had to rely on opposition votes.
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
MG..Like I said .. enjoy the body count..because in this instance we could have made it a smaller number.. We have told a madman to caarry on with the slaughter...great stuff The frantic scrambling of the lefties on here in order to cover their shame is nauseating.
Oh, don't be so daft.
What, precisely, could 'we' have done to make the body-count smaller?
Do you really think "a madman" is bothered one way or the other what Britain thinks (or, for that matter, anyone else)?
If you believe Assad could be deterred from further chemical weapon use by air- and missile-strikes, why were they carried out, after Obama had laid down his red line?
"Do you really think "a madman" is bothered one way or the other what Britain thinks (or, for that matter, anyone else)?"
If he is not bothered, why did the speaker of the Syrian parliament (that august democratic body) send a letter to our parliament asking our MPs to vote in a certain way?
Hardly the action of someone who is not bothered.
PR, I should imagine. The question however, is whether anything Britain could do would change Assad's behaviour for the better. I note that you sidestepped that one.
JIC based their views, in their own words, on "open sources".
They watch BBC news !
I know but to be fair they did give Cameron a private briefing that will have included all they know that wasn't open source. It's the fact that neither JIC nor the US Intelligence agencies have much of anything new they are willing to get behind and put out there that is so startling. Blowback from "slam dunk" and the other Iraq mistakes? To a degree but they are well aware that public opinion is not behind this so if they did have anything solid they would have done everything possible to make it known.
The UN will at least bring more hard evidence to the situation which is what is required right now. Whether you support or oppose military intervention those who perpetrated this must be found and indeed some of us would like to see them held responsible for this war crime by the ICC.
It does seem likely that both "sides" in Syria might have crossed the "red line".
What does the West do about that?
Perhaps a stable Assad regime is the lesser of two evils for the people of Syria (which should be, but obviously isn't, the West's priority).
Well that's always been the case for the West when it comes to the ME.. Preferring dictators which aren't 'too bad', but keep the 'peace' in terms of Islamism.
But the 'Arab spring' has unleashed chaos in the region, and we can't now been seen sticking up for dictators over 'democracy' as it pushes them to do questionable things to keep control.
It's a total clusterf*** of a situation, and worse still..there is no solution in sight, the citizens of the Middle East won't turn into guardian loving liberals overnight, if ever..
PR, I should imagine. The question however, is whether anything Britain could do would change Assad's behaviour for the better. I note that you sidestepped that one.
Why bother with PR if you're not bothered?
There are several things that *may* change Assad's behaviour for the better. Firstly, external pressure, particularly from Russia. However, that might have the opposite effect: if he thinks he has no friends amongst the international community, he might as well break all international conventions. Russia might be better if it played the role of stern friend whilst applying intense pressure with the carrot and the stick. Britain could also play a role in that.
Secondly, fear. Assad is facing an existential crisis. His family have shown a penchant in the past for atrocities, and there can be little doubt that similar behaviour has occurred during the civil war, regardless of the use of chemical weapons. If he fears that the consequences of using chemical weapons are worse than the tactical gains he gets from using them, he may not use them. Cameron tried to apply that threat; parliament removed it.
Thirdly, victory. Supporting Assad to get a quick victory might make him behave better. But that is a big no-no.
I am hearing some rumours about the planned scope of a US Strike against the Assad regime. I posted the other day that the Strike Lite option on the table had got a new little brother called Strike Skinny.
If what I am hearing is true and I cant verify it, try Strike-Emaciated which has large potential to waste time, deter nothing and achieve nothing. In fact it might embolden the regime and its regional allies.
There are around 5 options on the table based essentially on target scope so on paper they are all open but I'm guessing maximal options have been ruled out so you have maybe 3 in active consideration. For those lining up to back it, I reported the other day that there was some scratching of heads at the pfaffing in Washington and I'm sure that continues.
The US has all it needs in place to deliver every option, if it wants. Its for the man at the top to call.
David Bufton @davidpjbufton 11m According to ITV News, The White House is furious at Ed Miliband for playing party politics over Syria. #ITVNews #Syria
Nice move Ed.... that's the way to look like a statesman.
I must be the only person whose opinion of David Cameron has gone up today. From a low base, admittedly.
Also, Miliband got slightly over-excited with his comments about Cameron being reckless etc. A more magnanimous tone, "PM was trying to do the right thing but misjudged" etc would have been better.
Though Ed's latest comments about stepping up efforts for solutions in Syria do seem more along those lines.
I also think Cameron acted admirably and in time I think he will benefit from this. People will see that unlike Brown & Blair he is a man of principle and he is prepared to argue his case with honest information. His few words after the vote last night were full of merit and were words that Blair or Brown could never say
The recall of Parliament may have been bad short term politics but it did show his respect for Parliament and democracy. He lost the argument but he immediately moved on and took on parliaments will. Do we really want to return the Blair/Brown era where parliament was irrelevant. Posters on here who say Cameron is hopeless etc may wish to reflect on this.
I also think more of Cameron than I did yesterday. He played this straight, made his case and it is in no way to his discredit that he lost.
I don't even think it was bad politics. He did have a choice to railroad this through but made the decision that doing so was unacceptable in the face of such widespread public opposition and scepticism.
I think he was wrong in his desire to get us involved in Syria but not in the way he handled the issue with regard to Parliament and public opinion.
Mr Cameron thought he had the votes when he went in. Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband had agreed this was going to pass, the debate and vote was just supposed to be window dressing for the voters, who opposed intervention in Syria 2:1.
If someone was depending on knife stabbing brother Millipede, they were depending on the wrong man.
Fantastic Amateurism from the Etonian in Number Ten or the Etonian in the Whips Office. Or, more likely, both.
What a bunch of twits the leadership of the once organised Tory Party are.
"One told me that the first he heard of the decision to recall was a message from EasyJet offering him a flight back. "Perhaps the Whips Office should just be franchised out to EasyJet," he told me. "
OK, so the anti-war Tories are narked off with the leadership for trying to force the thing through, and the pro-war Tories are narked off with him for cocking up the vote.
They need what, 46 anonymous letters for a no-confidence vote? There must be a fair few on file already. If the requisite number pulled the trigger, does anyone think he'd win the vote?
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
If the PM&DPM had the confidence of their own parties on this issue, they wouldn't have had to rely on opposition votes.
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
1. There was cross-party (or at least, cross-leadership) agreement before Miliband decided to put his own, almost identical, motion down too.
2. Miliband wasn't leading opposition to the government; he was largely agreeing with it in principle, while finding continual reasons to slightly distinguish himself from it. There was indeed opposition within both Houses, but Miliband wasn't leading it.
3. There were plenty of Labour MPs not present too (or perhaps, not voting for Miliband's motion). Are they or he to be similarly criticised?
4. Only one party suffered a resignation on the subject and it wasn't a government one.
Miliband clearly wanted to play party politics. That's evident from his behaviour before and after the debate. It is in his nature (he was, after all, for many years a member of the Brownite inner circle). It will not benefit his reputation.
Fantastic Amateurism from the Etonian in Number Ten or the Etonian in the Whips Office. Or, more likely, both.
What a bunch of twits the leadership of the once organised Tory Party are.
"One told me that the first he heard of the decision to recall was a message from EasyJet offering him a flight back. "Perhaps the Whips Office should just be franchised out to EasyJet," he told me. "
OK, so the anti-war Tories are narked off with the leadership for trying to force the thing through, and the pro-war Tories are narked off with him for cocking up the vote.
They need what, 46 anonymous letters for a no-confidence vote? There must be a fair few on file already. If the requisite number pulled the trigger, does anyone think he'd win the vote?
I would think if there was a challenge in terms of the letters, he would resign.
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
If the PM&DPM had the confidence of their own parties on this issue, they wouldn't have had to rely on opposition votes.
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
Miliband clearly wanted to play party politics. That's evident from his behaviour before and after the debate. It is in his nature (he was, after all, for many years a member of the Brownite inner circle). It will not benefit his reputation.
Oh codswallop. You might as well argue that Cameron was "playing party politics" for refusing to agree with the Labour position. Partisan nonsense.
Fantastic Amateurism from the Etonian in Number Ten or the Etonian in the Whips Office. Or, more likely, both.
What a bunch of twits the leadership of the once organised Tory Party are.
"One told me that the first he heard of the decision to recall was a message from EasyJet offering him a flight back. "Perhaps the Whips Office should just be franchised out to EasyJet," he told me. "
OK, so the anti-war Tories are narked off with the leadership for trying to force the thing through, and the pro-war Tories are narked off with him for cocking up the vote.
They need what, 46 anonymous letters for a no-confidence vote? There must be a fair few on file already. If the requisite number pulled the trigger, does anyone think he'd win the vote?
I would think if there was a challenge in terms of the letters, he would resign.
Seems plausible, doesn't it. So why is a Cameron exit in 2013 still 10/1? Don't the Tories have 46 narked-off people?
If the reports of napalm being dropped on a school playground are true, then the stakes in this politically just got a lot more serious.
Why?
Exactly that sort of thing has been happening for the last 2 years from both sides of the conflict and we have done nothing about it. Why is that any different today than it was yesterday?
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
If the PM&DPM had the confidence of their own parties on this issue, they wouldn't have had to rely on opposition votes.
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
Miliband clearly wanted to play party politics. That's evident from his behaviour before and after the debate. It is in his nature (he was, after all, for many years a member of the Brownite inner circle). It will not benefit his reputation.
Oh codswallop. You might as well argue that Cameron was "playing party politics" for refusing to agree with the Labour position. Partisan nonsense.
Yes, the accusation that a politician is 'playing party politics' has always struck me as tautological. It's just that some of them do it more subtly than others.
Fantastic Amateurism from the Etonian in Number Ten or the Etonian in the Whips Office. Or, more likely, both.
What a bunch of twits the leadership of the once organised Tory Party are.
"One told me that the first he heard of the decision to recall was a message from EasyJet offering him a flight back. "Perhaps the Whips Office should just be franchised out to EasyJet," he told me. "
It was self-evidently shambolic and the all too predictable frantic hunt for a scapegoat for the incompetent fops to hide behind was always going to land on George Young's head.
The rumour is Sir George warned Cammie not to have a recall vote and even if it was somehow Young's fault then who was it who made him chief whip in the first place?
Not to mention the somewhat inconvenient fact that this is hardly the first time Cammie has totally misjudged the mood of his backbenches in a vote, and that was with a different chief whip. Sooner or later it might dawn on those not inside the chumocracy that the problem isn't with the underlings but the master strategists.
The master strategist's main problem was that they believed their own spin about little Ed somehow ensuring that the tory backbenchers would rally behind Cammie. So much for that nonsense. Had they remembered the 81 tory MPs who wrote to Cammie warning him about arming the Syrian Rebels things might have went differently, but that would require a degree of competence simply not within the master strategists reach.
Yet there is at least the recognition of failure even though it takes the usual form of recriminations and looking for a scapegoat from the chumocracy.
Contrast that with the lib dem's hopeless and lifeless husk. What on earth is the point of them when Clegg doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he's doing, what his party stands for and what positions he might take from day to day. Clegg actually believed it was a good idea to simply back Cameron unquestioningly and hope for the best, while expecting his incompetent spinners to somehow smooth everything out with the grassroots. Truly incredible.
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
If the PM&DPM had the confidence of their own parties on this issue, they wouldn't have had to rely on opposition votes.
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
Miliband clearly wanted to play party politics. That's evident from his behaviour before and after the debate. It is in his nature (he was, after all, for many years a member of the Brownite inner circle). It will not benefit his reputation.
Oh codswallop. You might as well argue that Cameron was "playing party politics" for refusing to agree with the Labour position. Partisan nonsense.
If Miliband had put down the original motion and Cameron had sought to 'amend' it to something almost identical, that point might have some merit.
If Cameron had agreed a position with Miliband and then created a division, that might have some merit.
If Cameron had criticised Miliband after the vote for losing authority, that might have some merit.
Fantastic Amateurism from the Etonian in Number Ten or the Etonian in the Whips Office. Or, more likely, both.
What a bunch of twits the leadership of the once organised Tory Party are.
"One told me that the first he heard of the decision to recall was a message from EasyJet offering him a flight back. "Perhaps the Whips Office should just be franchised out to EasyJet," he told me. "
OK, so the anti-war Tories are narked off with the leadership for trying to force the thing through, and the pro-war Tories are narked off with him for cocking up the vote.
They need what, 46 anonymous letters for a no-confidence vote? There must be a fair few on file already. If the requisite number pulled the trigger, does anyone think he'd win the vote?
I would think if there was a challenge in terms of the letters, he would resign.
Seems plausible, doesn't it. So why is a Cameron exit in 2013 still 10/1? Don't the Tories have 46 narked-off people?
Well that's 46 people willing to pull the trigger, potentially pushing the country to chaos, a early general election, losing their place in power and potentially their seat in a election.
The problem for Cameron is that this episode just further illustrates his already perceived weaknesses: 1) a failure to work on the detail of his proposals; and 2) haughty disdain for the opinions of his backbenchers
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
If the PM&DPM had the confidence of their own parties on this issue, they wouldn't have had to rely on opposition votes.
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
Miliband clearly wanted to play party politics. That's evident from his behaviour before and after the debate. It is in his nature (he was, after all, for many years a member of the Brownite inner circle). It will not benefit his reputation.
Oh codswallop. You might as well argue that Cameron was "playing party politics" for refusing to agree with the Labour position. Partisan nonsense.
If Miliband had put down the original motion and Cameron had sought to 'amend' it to something almost identical, that point might have some merit.
If Cameron had agreed a position with Miliband and then created a division, that might have some merit.
If Cameron had criticised Miliband after the vote for losing authority, that might have some merit.
But he didn't.
Cameron refused to vote for Labour's amendment. Shameless party political game playing from the Prime Minister over a vital issue of blah blah
If Miliband had put down the original motion and Cameron had sought to 'amend' it to something almost identical, that point might have some merit.
If Cameron had agreed a position with Miliband and then created a division, that might have some merit.
If Cameron had criticised Miliband after the vote for losing authority, that might have some merit.
But he didn't.
In fact he did exactly the opposite - he changed the government resolution to accomodate all the requests from Labour, in an effort to build consensus.
Calm down, dears. From the Bank of England release:
Consumer credit increased by £0.6 billion in July, compared to the average monthly increase of £0.5 billion over the previous six months.
Consumer Credit is up 3.5% year-on-year, which is a higher increase than earnings. Are you really sanguine about that?
It is good that personal borrowing is about 25% down on its 2008 peak, which shows the progress made by some sectors of the economy to deleverage after the immense borrowing binge of the Brown years, but this has definitely changed direction now. Do you think 25% is enough deleveraging? It only takes us back to 2003 in terms of the nominal level of debt.
If it turns out that the recent welcome return to growth has only occurred because the British consumer has begun to borrow unsustainably again - isn't that the same debt-fuelled growth you have criticised Brown for, over and over again?
The problem for Cameron is that this episode just further illustrates his already perceived weaknesses: 1) a failure to work on the detail of his proposals; and 2) haughty disdain for the opinions of his backbenchers
Agree,sam coates of the times was on sky news earlier,he said that a tory MP went to no 10 to tell he would have trouble on the Syria vote with so many tory MP'S uneasy on Syria and was told by a adviser to go away.
If Miliband had put down the original motion and Cameron had sought to 'amend' it to something almost identical, that point might have some merit.
If Cameron had agreed a position with Miliband and then created a division, that might have some merit.
If Cameron had criticised Miliband after the vote for losing authority, that might have some merit.
But he didn't.
In fact he did exactly the opposite - he changed the government resolution to accomodate all the requests from Labour, in an effort to build consensus.
Ffs
Principled, brave and consensual David Cameron (Conservative) prevented from doing the right thing by sneaky, duplicitous, partisan weasel Ed Miliband (Labour).
What a shambles! As Cameron faced Commons humiliation TEN members of his own government missed the crunch vote Prime Minister humiliated in the Commons after losing by just 13 votes 8 ministers, 2 whips and 2 ministerial aides failed to turn up Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds chatting and missed division bell Chief whip Sir George Young faces the sack in expected reshuffle
After Justine Greening's "mishap" in missing the vote last night, will this make her all the more likely to be the first minister to leave the cabinet, actually more likely to be joint first in a re-shuffle, therefore severely impacting on the resulting dead-heat determined odds.
Anyway FWIW, Ladbrokes have her priced at 7/1 to be first out of the door. She might of course leave earlier, of her own volition.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898551
What on earth is he wittering on about? Does he not realise he is finished and so is the UK's reputation as an important international player. Who in god's name will take any notice of anything he has to say now?
The man is a complete fool and totally in denial about what his party has done to him.
The volatility is why letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered in the region is such a bad idea. As I have said passim, there is no 'right' answer to this.
I would be interested to know what the 'international community' can do about it whilst there is a stalemate in the UNSC.
Milliband: I begin to wonder if Napoleon's alleged interview technique for his generals applies: never mind if he's any good, is he lucky?
tim suggests below that Cameron could have won if he'd waited till Monday. Can you think why he didn't? Feeling gung-ho? Or worse did he think that MPs would be too eager to get back to their holidays?
Last night was more of a Red Wedding stunt by Labour.
Labour source says there is a sense of "shock" over last night and that "no one wanted it to be a defeat". So why whip against govt?
What ye shall reap, ye shall sow Labour..
"Where's the proof that Israel has nuclear weapons.?"
Mordechai Vanunu
Thanks for that Mick.
So the JIC said that the main reason they believe the attack was by the Syrian Government was because the rebels lacked the access to or capability of using Chemical Weapons but here we have the UN themselves - the people actually doing the investigation saying there is strong evidence that the rebels are using Sarin.
Makes the JIC and government arguments seem even weaker than they did yesterday.
Also, Miliband got slightly over-excited with his comments about Cameron being reckless etc. A more magnanimous tone, "PM was trying to do the right thing but misjudged" etc would have been better.
Though Ed's latest comments about stepping up efforts for solutions in Syria do seem more along those lines.
I don't know what the international community can do. And I agree that letting the use of chemical weapons go unanswered is truly dreadful. But I also think any Western intervention in Syria without widespread support based on watertight proof of the Assad regime's guilt would produce consequences that were even more dreadful. The Middle East is a festering global sore that has developed over decades into what it is now, thanks in no small part to actions previously taken by many Western governments, including ours. Tragically, that is the inhibiting reality and the Syrian people are suffering for it.
We're having some server issues today, so the site maybe slower than normal and down for a while as the server is rebooted later on.
It also preventing me from publishing any new threads
As Mick Pork referred to Carla del Ponte, an Inspector in Syria, suggested that the rebels also had access to Sarin. So either the JIC did not know or they lied.
They have form in this matter.
Assad has zero respect for human rights but that certainly didn't start with the civil war. He was always contemptuous of them. The problem for those advocating military intervention is that a great many of the Rebels also have zero respect for human rights. So a strategy entirely based on punitive military strikes aimed at the regime those Rebels are trying to overthrow has a pretty glaring flaw at the heart of it.
Having access to is not the same as using, surely?
As you said above, I understand your viewpoint, but disagree with it. I fear the long-term consequences will be severe unless we are lucky. Then again, it's hard to see a course of action that may not have severe consequences.
I must admit it does seem a rather more important issue to discuss heatedly than most of the things that get us excited on PB.
The recall of Parliament may have been bad short term politics but it did show his respect for Parliament and democracy. He lost the argument but he immediately moved on and took on parliaments will. Do we really want to return the Blair/Brown era where parliament was irrelevant. Posters on here who say Cameron is hopeless etc may wish to reflect on this.
Are you saying virgins cannot be killers? As much sense as Islam....
It's because I'm a supporter of intervention in Syria
"There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition."
They then say that:
"The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime
responsibility."
Clearly they have not been talking to the UN who have a very different view of this matter.
We have told a madman to caarry on with the slaughter...great stuff
The frantic scrambling of the lefties on here in order to cover their shame is nauseating.
If there is an imminent threat and diplomacy will not work (either intra or extra the nation), then force may sadly be justifiable. That is where we are with Syria.
I don't want force to have to be used; it's just that a limited intervention could well be the least-worst option.
Fwiw, North Korea withdrew from the NNPT before developing its own bomb. I am certainly concerned about Iran's nuclear programme and believe the UN is right to impose sanctions in respect of it. The UNSC is charged with considering threats to international stability and I'd regard an Iranian atomic weapon as such, whether or not it was still a signatory of the NNPT.
But if growth this year has already reached 1% (0.3% 1Q and 0.7% 2Q) and many commentators are forecasting an acceleration for 3Q (0.8, 0.9??), isn't it more probable than possible that the rate this year will be very close to 2% and perhaps even slightly higher.
So why are the BCC and CBI (that recently released a similar forecast) being so 'pessimistic'?
Over to my main man Avery....
Consumer credit increased by £0.6 billion in July, compared to the average monthly increase of £0.5 billion over the previous six months.
One person in the UN, no matter how respected, still isn't enough. However, that's the crux of the matter in proving either case. There's clearly more evidence than just one UN Inspector and it is inconceivable that JIC weren't aware of it. The paucity of evidence to even make the case linking individuals in the regime directly to the attack also makes it likely that some of the material JIC are basing their conclusions on may also be from individuals and a scant few intercepts.
Some of us remember "curveball" and the immense damage he did. A far higher standard of proof than what has gone before is not some luxury but an absolute necessity.
Twitter
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 24m
Could someone explain what Ed Miliband actually thinks we should now do at the Security Council. Vote for military action?
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 37m
We are permanent members of the Security Council and must fulfil our responsibilities.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 38m
ITN: "Ed Miliband has urged the Government not to "wash its hands" of Syria". Seriously, what can you say about the guy.
alexmassie @alexmassie 41m
Basically, this week Ed Miliband has revealed himself as a Student union politician, not a statesman-in-waiting. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/08/on-syria-parliament-has-voted-to-have-no-policy-at-all/ …
I also think more of Cameron than I did yesterday. He played this straight, made his case and it is in no way to his discredit that he lost.
I don't even think it was bad politics. He did have a choice to railroad this through but made the decision that doing so was unacceptable in the face of such widespread public opposition and scepticism.
I think he was wrong in his desire to get us involved in Syria but not in the way he handled the issue with regard to Parliament and public opinion.
It's good that Parliament is shown to have teeth to check the executive on such an important matter, and in so doing might well have altered our unwritten constitution vis a vis the "Royal Prerogative" in going in for "minor" wars and "police actions". It's going to be hard for a future PM to launch cruise missiles against similar threats in future without consulting Parliament. All quite probably no bad thing, and really one of the possible lasting effects of Blair in 2003, when Parliament went on trust and was sold a pup on WMD. It's a question now of the "Daltry doctrine" (so to speak) - won't get fooled again.
Yes, good that Cameron has bowed to the will of Parliament - he could hardly do otherwise, and I too struggle to imagine Blair or Brown saying "I get it", but it can't be glossed over that Cameron has shot himself in the foot. Ed was having a crap Summer poll lead dropping looking "not Papabile" so to speak, and Cameron goes and takes one of his best cards away from himself ie "bestriding the world stage looking like a PM" by picking an inept fight misreading the public and his own party (so much for "Tory warmongers" I suppose though).
Still I bet the Syrians sadly wish they had a functioning democracy like this where there is genuine debate and the leader says "OK I get it" when he loses a vote. Sadly we have to accept there is nothing practical from a force perspective we can do that will help their situation or (because outrage is not a foreign policy substitute) that will foster the UK's own interest.
For the record the 'UN' seems incapable of agreeing on anything at all so clearly there is not one unified view. But I am simply pointing out that the JIC claim that there is no credible intelligence for the Opposition in Syria having access to chemical weapons flies in the face of the statements by those who should be in a position to know on the ground.
What, precisely, could 'we' have done to make the body-count smaller?
Do you really think "a madman" is bothered one way or the other what Britain thinks (or, for that matter, anyone else)?
If you believe Assad could be deterred from further chemical weapon use by air- and missile-strikes, why were they carried out, after Obama had laid down his red line?
If he is not bothered, why did the speaker of the Syrian parliament (that august democratic body) send a letter to our parliament asking our MPs to vote in a certain way?
Hardly the action of someone who is not bothered.
Her hypocrisy knows no bounds.
BBC - Syria crisis: Robust response needed, David Cameron says
BBC - Syria crisis: Miliband urges UK not to 'wash its hands'
'The coalition have 359 MPs. They could only turn out 272 for their own motion. This is the key issue from last night.'
Nope, the key issue was Ed supporting the government on Tuesday and then playing party politics yesterday.
They watch BBC news !
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charles-shoebridge/syria-chemical-weapons-us_b_3443185.html
David Cameron to leave the post of PM during 2013 10/1 (from 16/1 yesterday)
It is utterly bizarre to criticise the leader of the opposition for leading the opposition. There was clearly opposition in the house and the country.
What was very usual was that the PM couldn't turn out the full parliamentary Conservative party on such a matter.
As for party politics, that works two ways. The PM had a way out all along. If his priority truly was cross-party agreement, he could have very simply have supported the opposition amendment.
What does the West do about that?
Perhaps a stable Assad regime is the lesser of two evils for the people of Syria (which should be, but obviously isn't, the West's priority).
The UN will at least bring more hard evidence to the situation which is what is required right now. Whether you support or oppose military intervention those who perpetrated this must be found and indeed some of us would like to see them held responsible for this war crime by the ICC.
But the 'Arab spring' has unleashed chaos in the region, and we can't now been seen sticking up for dictators over 'democracy' as it pushes them to do questionable things to keep control.
It's a total clusterf*** of a situation, and worse still..there is no solution in sight, the citizens of the Middle East won't turn into guardian loving liberals overnight, if ever..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23896034
He has just helped ensure that not only have we washed out hands of Syria we've unplugged the phone against the rest of the world, too.
What the hell is Labour going to do when Miliband actually get's into power?
There are several things that *may* change Assad's behaviour for the better. Firstly, external pressure, particularly from Russia. However, that might have the opposite effect: if he thinks he has no friends amongst the international community, he might as well break all international conventions. Russia might be better if it played the role of stern friend whilst applying intense pressure with the carrot and the stick. Britain could also play a role in that.
Secondly, fear. Assad is facing an existential crisis. His family have shown a penchant in the past for atrocities, and there can be little doubt that similar behaviour has occurred during the civil war, regardless of the use of chemical weapons. If he fears that the consequences of using chemical weapons are worse than the tactical gains he gets from using them, he may not use them. Cameron tried to apply that threat; parliament removed it.
Thirdly, victory. Supporting Assad to get a quick victory might make him behave better. But that is a big no-no.
The whole thing is a mess.
I am hearing some rumours about the planned scope of a US Strike against the Assad regime. I posted the other day that the Strike Lite option on the table had got a new little brother called Strike Skinny.
If what I am hearing is true and I cant verify it, try Strike-Emaciated which has large potential to waste time, deter nothing and achieve nothing. In fact it might embolden the regime and its regional allies.
There are around 5 options on the table based essentially on target scope so on paper they are all open but I'm guessing maximal options have been ruled out so you have maybe 3 in active consideration. For those lining up to back it, I reported the other day that there was some scratching of heads at the pfaffing in Washington and I'm sure that continues.
The US has all it needs in place to deliver every option, if it wants. Its for the man at the top to call.
Cameron knew he was in deep trouble on Wednesday. His call to the Democratic Unionists on that day was fairly long.
According to ITV News, The White House is furious at Ed Miliband for playing party politics over Syria. #ITVNews #Syria
Nice move Ed.... that's the way to look like a statesman.
They need what, 46 anonymous letters for a no-confidence vote? There must be a fair few on file already. If the requisite number pulled the trigger, does anyone think he'd win the vote?
2. Miliband wasn't leading opposition to the government; he was largely agreeing with it in principle, while finding continual reasons to slightly distinguish himself from it. There was indeed opposition within both Houses, but Miliband wasn't leading it.
3. There were plenty of Labour MPs not present too (or perhaps, not voting for Miliband's motion). Are they or he to be similarly criticised?
4. Only one party suffered a resignation on the subject and it wasn't a government one.
Miliband clearly wanted to play party politics. That's evident from his behaviour before and after the debate. It is in his nature (he was, after all, for many years a member of the Brownite inner circle). It will not benefit his reputation.
France firmly resolved to take action on Syria, not like the roast-beef eating surrender monkeys.
Exactly that sort of thing has been happening for the last 2 years from both sides of the conflict and we have done nothing about it. Why is that any different today than it was yesterday?
'If the reports of napalm being dropped on a school playground are true, then the stakes in this politically just got a lot more serious.'
Maybe Ed can take time out of playing party politics and have a look.
The rumour is Sir George warned Cammie not to have a recall vote and even if it was somehow Young's fault then who was it who made him chief whip in the first place?
Not to mention the somewhat inconvenient fact that this is hardly the first time Cammie has totally misjudged the mood of his backbenches in a vote, and that was with a different chief whip. Sooner or later it might dawn on those not inside the chumocracy that the problem isn't with the underlings but the master strategists.
The master strategist's main problem was that they believed their own spin about little Ed somehow ensuring that the tory backbenchers would rally behind Cammie. So much for that nonsense. Had they remembered the 81 tory MPs who wrote to Cammie warning him about arming the Syrian Rebels things might have went differently, but that would require a degree of competence simply not within the master strategists reach.
Yet there is at least the recognition of failure even though it takes the usual form of recriminations and looking for a scapegoat from the chumocracy.
Contrast that with the lib dem's hopeless and lifeless husk. What on earth is the point of them when Clegg doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he's doing, what his party stands for and what positions he might take from day to day. Clegg actually believed it was a good idea to simply back Cameron unquestioningly and hope for the best, while expecting his incompetent spinners to somehow smooth everything out with the grassroots. Truly incredible.
If Cameron had agreed a position with Miliband and then created a division, that might have some merit.
If Cameron had criticised Miliband after the vote for losing authority, that might have some merit.
But he didn't.
That's going beyond merely 'narked off'.
Miliband set conditions for support which were *not met*. Look at his conditions again.
It is good that personal borrowing is about 25% down on its 2008 peak, which shows the progress made by some sectors of the economy to deleverage after the immense borrowing binge of the Brown years, but this has definitely changed direction now. Do you think 25% is enough deleveraging? It only takes us back to 2003 in terms of the nominal level of debt.
If it turns out that the recent welcome return to growth has only occurred because the British consumer has begun to borrow unsustainably again - isn't that the same debt-fuelled growth you have criticised Brown for, over and over again?
Principled, brave and consensual David Cameron (Conservative) prevented from doing the right thing by sneaky, duplicitous, partisan weasel Ed Miliband (Labour).
Yeah
Anyway FWIW, Ladbrokes have her priced at 7/1 to be first out of the door. She might of course leave earlier, of her own volition.