'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
Again, Labour's amendment was a do-noting amendment. What is 'compelling evidence'?
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).
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).
Principled, brave and consensual David Cameron (Conservative) prevented from doing the right thing by sneaky, duplicitous, partisan weasel Ed Miliband (Labour).
'prevented from doing the right thing by sneaky, duplicitous, partisan weasel tory backbenchers...'
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.
Given that Cameron needs to keep the number of seriously peeved people in his party below 46, can he even afford to do a reshuffle?
@OblitusSumMe - As the economy begins to edge back towards normality and some (still tentative) growth, I'd expect to see net consumer credit rising a touch, which is what we're seeing. Whether it's unsustainable debt depends on who is borrowing, or, at least, who is no longer paying down their debt - remember this figure is the change in net credit.
Looking at the bank bad-debt provisions, it all looks pretty healthy at the moment.
Again, Labour's amendment was a do-noting amendment.
Maybe it was. But Cameron should have supported it anyway. Otherwise he was just playing petty party politics with a vital blah
Alternatively, perhaps Miliband and Cameron, and all concerned, simply did what they thought was right because they take issues of war and peace gravely seriously? Shurely not?
Again, Labour's amendment was a do-noting amendment.
Maybe it was. But Cameron should have supported it anyway. Otherwise he was just playing petty party politics with a vital blah
Alternatively, perhaps Miliband and Cameron, and all concerned, simply did what they thought was right because they take issues of war and peace gravely seriously? Shurely not?
Why on earth should Cameron have supported a do-nothing amendment? If he believes it is in Britain's interests to try to stop Assad from using chemical weapons, then a do-nothing amendment was pointless. Worse, Assad would have known it was pointless.
That's simply a ridiculous position. And Miliband is intelligent enough to know that.
@OblitusSumMe - As the economy begins to edge back towards normality and some (still tentative) growth, I'd expect to see net consumer credit rising a touch, which is what we're seeing. Whether it's unsustainable debt depends on who is borrowing, or, at least, who is no longer paying down their debt - remember this figure is the change in net credit.
Looking at the bank bad-debt provisions, it all looks pretty healthy at the moment.
If personal debt grows at a rate greater than earnings it is by definition growing at an unsustainable rate, because if continued indefinitely it implies a ratio of personal debt to earnings that tends to infinity.
You know this. I know you know this. So why the quibbling about who is borrowing, or not paying back their debts?
Perhaps earnings growth will soon pick up and the growth in credit will not accelerate, so that the growth in personal debt will be below the growth in earnings, and it will not be unsustainable. I'm sure you'll let me know if this proves to be the case.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
Tell a lunatic to carry on killing his own people and we wont even lift a finger to stop him, and hey.. guess what?..he will just keep on doing it' Thats what the lefties voted for. Ed played a blunder
Again, Labour's amendment was a do-noting amendment.
Maybe it was. But Cameron should have supported it anyway. Otherwise he was just playing petty party politics with a vital blah
Alternatively, perhaps Miliband and Cameron, and all concerned, simply did what they thought was right because they take issues of war and peace gravely seriously? Shurely not?
Why on earth should Cameron have supported a do-nothing amendment? If he believes it is in Britain's interests to try to stop Assad from using chemical weapons, then a do-nothing amendment was pointless. Worse, Assad would have known it was pointless.
That's simply a ridiculous position. And Miliband is intelligent enough to know that.
My point, of course, is that both leaders took positions they believed to be right.
Accusing one and not the other of "playing party politics" is pathetic.
Even the usually level-headed Tories on PB have lost their marbles today.
If personal debt grows at a rate greater than earnings it is by definition growing at an unsustainable rate, because if continued indefinitely it implies a ratio of personal debt to earnings that tends to infinity.
You know this. I know you know this. So why the quibbling about who is borrowing, or not paying back their debts?
Err, my friend, by your eccentric reasoning, ANY change in ANY economic statistic which doesn't exactly match GDP growth is by definition unsustainable because it tends to infinity. You could equally argue that the drop in consumer credit was unsustainable because it would eventually reach zero and if it continued it would end up with consumers holding more than the banks' aggregate balance sheets.
Of course it matters hugely who is borrowing. If it is someone with a steady income which covers outgoings comfortably, with no other debt, and with collateral in a house, who takes out a loan to buy a car, that is completely different to someone with no assets and already maxed out on credit cards and spending more than they earn taking out a loan to splash out on a fancy holiday.
Tell a lunatic to carry on killing his own people and we wont even lift a finger to stop him, and hey.. guess what?..he will just keep on doing it' Thats what the lefties voted for. Ed played a blunder
Why are you continually posting in support of Al Qaeda ?
"If personal debt grows at a rate greater than earnings it is by definition growing at an unsustainable rate, because if continued indefinitely it implies a ratio of personal debt to earnings that tends to infinity."
Any rate apart from exactly that of average earnings tends either to infinity or zero. The problem comes either from rates which are markedly different from those of average earnings (either way), or prolonged periods where the rate of one exceeds that of the other.
We're not near either of those conditions yet but it is something to keep an eye on.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
Close to 100 Tory and LD MPs did not support the government motion. At some stage you will accept that. And perhaps at some stage you will accept that Labour saw things differently to the government and acted accordingly. But if you want to be stupid about it, in bringing the motion he did to the House and in failing to get it carried Cameron provided succour to Assad. His weakness has strengthened a murderous dictator.
Cammers should consult Ozzie about efficiency savings. Surely we can split DfID between the FCO and MoD, no? And so we need to fund the DCMS...?
No ministerial shuffles; just a reappraisal of duties and responsibilities. A cabinet comprised of fewer departments - stares at the mock-ministries of Wales, Ulster and Scotland - would be more inline with our new place in the world....
Close to 100 Tory and LD MPs did not support the government motion. At some stage you will accept that. And perhaps at some stage you will accept that Labour saw things differently to the government and acted accordingly. But if you want to be stupid about it, in bringing the motion he did to the House and in failing to get it carried Cameron provided succour to Assad. His weakness has strengthened a murderous dictator.
The Tory and LibDem rebels, and presumably some individual Labour MPs, had an honourable disagreement with the PM. Fair enough.
In contrast, Ed Miliband and the Labour front bench seem not to have any disagreement of consequence at all with the government's position, once it had been adjusted to take account of their concerns, and, what is more, they told the PM that.
Again, Labour's amendment was a do-noting amendment.
Maybe it was. But Cameron should have supported it anyway. Otherwise he was just playing petty party politics with a vital blah
Alternatively, perhaps Miliband and Cameron, and all concerned, simply did what they thought was right because they take issues of war and peace gravely seriously? Shurely not?
Why on earth should Cameron have supported a do-nothing amendment? If he believes it is in Britain's interests to try to stop Assad from using chemical weapons, then a do-nothing amendment was pointless. Worse, Assad would have known it was pointless.
That's simply a ridiculous position. And Miliband is intelligent enough to know that.
My point, of course, is that both leaders took positions they believed to be right.
Accusing one and not the other of "playing party politics" is pathetic.
Even the usually level-headed Tories on PB have lost their marbles today.
I have made no such accusation. You might to look at some of the accusations being thrown the other way as well.
But Cameron at least had a way forward. What is Miliband's alternative way forward? He doesn't have one. And I can't believe he believes that is right.
Mr. Observer, I imagine there are many, many votes within the last decade or so where more than 100 MPs of the government side have not backed the official government line.
Mr. Jessop/Nabavi, quite so. Many Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative MPs had genuine misgivings about action. Miliband merely continued opposition for the sake of it, cementing his standing as an opportunistic little shit. If he really opposed action that's one thing, but he initially supported it and Cameron moved so far to meet him that the Government line was for all intents and purposes identical to what the Labour frontbench wanted. And which they then opposed.
Whilst glad we aren't intervening the vote yesterday (both times) was rather farcical.
MS..Yeh you are right..so many bad lads in that area, knock one lot down and up pops another..so boring..so tedious..lets just ignore them and they will just go away. "Owt good on't telly? there now thats better
Close to 100 Tory and LD MPs did not support the government motion. At some stage you will accept that. And perhaps at some stage you will accept that Labour saw things differently to the government and acted accordingly. But if you want to be stupid about it, in bringing the motion he did to the House and in failing to get it carried Cameron provided succour to Assad. His weakness has strengthened a murderous dictator.
The Tory and LibDem rebels, and presumably some individual Labour MPs, had an honourable disagreement with the PM. Fair enough.
In contrast, Ed Miliband and the Labour front bench seem not to have any disagreement of consequence at all with the government's position, once it had been adjusted to take account of their concerns, and, what is more, they told the PM that.
Clearly the Labour front bench did have disagreements of consequence. Otherwise they would have supported the government line.
Can the partisan idiots stop pretending the tories are incapable of being party political.
If Cameron didn't want to play party politics then having his sources leak this.
'Miliband Is A F***ing C**t And A Copper-Bottomed S***'
David Cameron's advisors could not contain their fury at Labour's decision not to back military action in Syria until after the conclusion of a UN inspection and report.
‘No 10… think Ed Miliband is a f***ing c**t and a copper-bottomed sh*t.’—govt source.
Is sadly as sure a way to convince anyone that Cameron was playing party politics right alongside little Ed.
What on earth did you think little Ed would do after that? Go running and begging to Cameron for forgiveness or convince him that there was no point at all trying to go for a consensual approach? Here's a clue, it wasn't the first one.
If Cammie and Number 10 wanted to be taken seriously then that ended it and we all remember the chuckling from PB tories at the time when they heard that. So all this whining like a toddler now about how 'it isn't fair!' just won't cut it.
You start playing games with spin then on your own head be it. Both sides changed positions and both sides tried to get their backbenches and as many as possible to vote for them.
Mr. Observer, abstenstions don't count as supporting the other said. There were 30 blue rebels and 9 yellow rebels.
Has anyone done the maths on how many MPs were unable to attend, overseas, etc?
84 voting members didn't take part in the second division. But since there's no such thing as a positive abstention we can't know how many were in the vicinity of the Commons at the time.
Mr. Observer, abstenstions don't count as supporting the other said. There were 30 blue rebels and 9 yellow rebels.
Has anyone done the maths on how many MPs were unable to attend, overseas, etc?
84 voting members didn't take part in the second division. But since there's no such thing as a positive abstention we can't know how many were in the vicinity of the Commons at the time.
Heading through both lobbies is a positive abstention.
'Miliband Is A F***ing C**t And A Copper-Bottomed S***'
So No. 10 thinks Miliband is a Failing Clot and a Copper-Bottomed Sham ?
Seems reasonable.
Indeed. If serious decisions involving attacking a country can't be reduced to calling the leader of the opposition a A F***ing C**t And A Copper-Bottomed S***, then where's the fun in that?
I'm sure we all remember Tony Blair calling IDS a b*** c******* w**** in a jovial manner just before the commons voted on Iraq. How we all laughed! Such jolly japes.
Mr. Observer, abstenstions don't count as supporting the other said. There were 30 blue rebels and 9 yellow rebels.
Has anyone done the maths on how many MPs were unable to attend, overseas, etc?
84 voting members didn't take part in the second division. But since there's no such thing as a positive abstention we can't know how many were in the vicinity of the Commons at the time.
There is a way of positive abstention. An MP can go through both Aye and No in the division.
Close to 100 Tory and LD MPs did not support the government motion. At some stage you will accept that. And perhaps at some stage you will accept that Labour saw things differently to the government and acted accordingly. But if you want to be stupid about it, in bringing the motion he did to the House and in failing to get it carried Cameron provided succour to Assad. His weakness has strengthened a murderous dictator.
The Tory and LibDem rebels, and presumably some individual Labour MPs, had an honourable disagreement with the PM. Fair enough.
In contrast, Ed Miliband and the Labour front bench seem not to have any disagreement of consequence at all with the government's position, once it had been adjusted to take account of their concerns, and, what is more, they told the PM that.
Clearly the Labour front bench did have disagreements of consequence. Otherwise they would have supported the government line.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Close to 100 Tory and LD MPs did not support the government motion. At some stage you will accept that. And perhaps at some stage you will accept that Labour saw things differently to the government and acted accordingly. But if you want to be stupid about it, in bringing the motion he did to the House and in failing to get it carried Cameron provided succour to Assad. His weakness has strengthened a murderous dictator.
The Tory and LibDem rebels, and presumably some individual Labour MPs, had an honourable disagreement with the PM. Fair enough.
In contrast, Ed Miliband and the Labour front bench seem not to have any disagreement of consequence at all with the government's position, once it had been adjusted to take account of their concerns, and, what is more, they told the PM that.
Clearly the Labour front bench did have disagreements of consequence. Otherwise they would have supported the government line.
Or he was playing party politics. One of the two.
Well indeed. And, as we can see on here, many of those who are ill-disposed towards Labour will say that. Clearly they want it to be true, but unfortunately that does not make it so.
Mr. Observer, abstenstions don't count as supporting the other said. There were 30 blue rebels and 9 yellow rebels.
Has anyone done the maths on how many MPs were unable to attend, overseas, etc?
84 voting members didn't take part in the second division. But since there's no such thing as a positive abstention we can't know how many were in the vicinity of the Commons at the time.
Beyond the mentioned positive abstention of voting each way, there's usually a count of MPs that are known to be abroad (I think some are representatives at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at the moment).
You can't know for sure, but for a 3 line whip you can usually account for a chunk of them.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
This. If Cameron had backed the amendment it would have passed with about 500 votes in favour. Then, after the UN weapons inspectors had reported to the security council, and a few other diplomatic moves had been taken, we would likely have been back in the commons for a vote on whether to lob some missiles into Syria - forcing Miliband to come off the fence and either definitively support or oppose such a measure, likely leading to a big split on the Labour benches whichever way he went.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Alternatively, he did not have to recall Parliament and/or have a vote in the first place.
Norman Tebbit: "...I think that was less a vote specifically against any possible military intervention in Syria as an expression of a lack of confidence in the ability or willingness of the Government to think through the consequences of its policies over a far wider front that Syria"
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Alternatively, he did not have to recall Parliament and/or have a vote in the first place.
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Do you really believe what you have written? Millband demanded concessions, Cameron gave them to him, yet he still voted against the Government. He did not do this out of principal as his motion was virtually the same as the Governments, he did it to play party politics. I think Miliband was as surprised as anyone when the Govt was defeated. I think he had hoped the Govt would win by about 20 votes as that would give him a stance to adopt. As shown this morning by his "we must not wash our hands" statement he does not have one now. Cameron can keep arguing about robust action, what can Miliband argue for? These people who think Cameron is a bad PM, just wait if Miliband makes it to No 10.
This policy was ill-conceived and unwise and I have little doubt that Cameron has been looking for a credible way out. He didn't find one but his acceptance that he "gets" what the British people feel about this was telling.
There will be no second attempts, not even in the face of yet more horrors such as the napalming of a school this morning. As I said last night Britain does not want to play any more and it will be a very brave PM who tries to persuade us otherwise.
I thought the Osborne interview on R4 this morning was very good and recognised that. I also thought the Humph was right to focus on the implications of the vote for our standing in the world and the way that we think of ourselves.
It may well be that this was long overdue and that we have been deluding ourselves for too long but every future PM will bear the consequences of this decision, including Miliband if elected. That does seem more likely now. God help us.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Alternatively, he did not have to recall Parliament and/or have a vote in the first place.
You should re-read the threads from earlier in the week. There were plenty of demands from people on here that parliament should get a vote on any action, even if it meant a recall of parliament.
He recalled parliament for a vote, and rightly so IMHO.
If he had not, then those same people would be complaining that action was taken without parliamentary approval. I would guess that you would be one of them.
He could not win. Perhaps you should remember that.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Once Cameron realised he had to drop the more substantive vote he had recalled Parliament to get why didn't he just do that? Then the substantive vote could have been held on Monday when everyone was back and he'd sorted out his comedy whipping operation. And Justine Greening/Mark Simmonds had found their way out of the "soundproofed room"
Eagle eyes in Commons say Greening tried to get nodded through having missed vote but Speaker said no.
Doesn't add up. If you don't hear a bell, well you don't hear it. Hmm... Tim you may well have been right a few hours back... Is 6-1 still a good price to get on Greening next out though ?
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Alternatively, he did not have to recall Parliament and/or have a vote in the first place.
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
I think he was in a very difficult position. What I am arguing with is the view put forward by some that Ed Miliband has provided succour for Assad. You may as well argue that David Cameron has done exactly the same. So I am illustrating how.
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
He didn't actually have a choice once he had been made aware the military action was likely and not that far in the future.
He'd already promised his own backbenches that there would be a vote of some kind if he was going to arm the Syrian rebels.
David Cameron promises vote on arming Syrian rebels
BRITISH TROOPS will be on the Syrian border within a week it emerged last night, even as David Cameron pledged not to arm Syrian rebels without a full vote in parliament.
More than 350 Royal Marines are being sent to Jordan as part of a multi-national exercise.
Expressing fears over “dangerous and extremist” al Qaeda elements within the rebel alliance levelled against President Bashar al-Assad, the Prime Minster declared: “I want nothing to do with them.”
However, he said Britain must continue to provide non-lethal aid.
Speaking on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News today, Mr Cameron said: “Assad is now guilty of the most appalling crimes against his people: 90,000 people dead and some of them through the use of chemical weapons.”
Meanwhile Egypt is cutting diplomatic ties with Syria and wants an international no-fly zone to be imposed.
So the idea that he could authorise an actual attack on Syria without consulting parliament is pie in the sky.
It makes it all the more inexplicable how he misjudged the tory backbench mood if it wasn't for the fact that he's done it several times before and he keeps doing it again and again.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Alternatively, he did not have to recall Parliament and/or have a vote in the first place.
You should re-read the threads from earlier in the week. There were plenty of demands from people on here that parliament should get a vote on any action, even if it meant a recall of parliament.
He recalled parliament for a vote, and rightly so IMHO.
If he had not, then those same people would be complaining that action was taken without parliamentary approval. I would guess that you would be one of them.
He could not win. Perhaps you should remember that.
I don't think Cameron is unique among our party leaders in that. Sadly, some on here refuse to recognise that EdM was in an equally difficult position and that, like Cameron, he did what he felt was best.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
If anyone's given succour to Assad, it's Cameron, by failing to grasp that supporting the Labour/SNP/PC motion was the only way to keep the possibility of UK intervention open.
Alternatively, he did not have to recall Parliament and/or have a vote in the first place.
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
I think he was in a very difficult position. What I am arguing with is the view put forward by some that Ed Miliband has provided succour for Assad. You may as well argue that David Cameron has done exactly the same. So I am illustrating how.
ah, fair enough. I think Assad would be fairly happy either way. The proposed action, even if it had been passed, or if it still happens doesn't seem all that likely to affect the final outcome, and probably leaves Assad still in place.
All this Miliband doesn't support Syrian babies crap is just tiresome
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
He didn't actually have a choice once he had been made aware the military action was likely and not that far in the future.
He'd already promised his own backbenches that there would be a vote of some kind if he was going to arm the Syrian rebels.
David Cameron promises vote on arming Syrian rebels
BRITISH TROOPS will be on the Syrian border within a week it emerged last night, even as David Cameron pledged not to arm Syrian rebels without a full vote in parliament.
More than 350 Royal Marines are being sent to Jordan as part of a multi-national exercise.
Expressing fears over “dangerous and extremist” al Qaeda elements within the rebel alliance levelled against President Bashar al-Assad, the Prime Minster declared: “I want nothing to do with them.”
However, he said Britain must continue to provide non-lethal aid.
Speaking on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News today, Mr Cameron said: “Assad is now guilty of the most appalling crimes against his people: 90,000 people dead and some of them through the use of chemical weapons.”
Meanwhile Egypt is cutting diplomatic ties with Syria and wants an international no-fly zone to be imposed.
So the idea that he could authorise an actual attack on Syria without consulting parliament is pie in the sky.
It makes it all the more inexplicable how he misjudged the tory backbench mood if it wasn't for the fact that he's done it several times before and he keeps doing it again and again.
that Cameron could take his eye of the ball like that doesn't seem surprising, but you'd think someone would be on it? I have been of the opinion that Hague is competent and has some idea what he'S trying to do. I'm beginning to doubt it
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
He didn't actually have a choice once he had been made aware the military action was likely and not that far in the future.
He'd already promised his own backbenches that there would be a vote of some kind if he was going to arm the Syrian rebels.
David Cameron promises vote on arming Syrian rebels
BRITISH TROOPS will be on the Syrian border within a week it emerged last night, even as David Cameron pledged not to arm Syrian rebels without a full vote in parliament.
More than 350 Royal Marines are being sent to Jordan as part of a multi-national exercise.
Expressing fears over “dangerous and extremist” al Qaeda elements within the rebel alliance levelled against President Bashar al-Assad, the Prime Minster declared: “I want nothing to do with them.”
However, he said Britain must continue to provide non-lethal aid.
Speaking on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News today, Mr Cameron said: “Assad is now guilty of the most appalling crimes against his people: 90,000 people dead and some of them through the use of chemical weapons.”
Meanwhile Egypt is cutting diplomatic ties with Syria and wants an international no-fly zone to be imposed.
So the idea that he could authorise an actual attack on Syria without consulting parliament is pie in the sky.
It makes it all the more inexplicable how he misjudged the tory backbench mood if it wasn't for the fact that he's done it several times before and he keeps doing it again and again.
that Cameron could take his eye of the ball like that doesn't seem surprising, but you'd think someone would be on it? I have been of the opinion that Hague is competent and has some idea what he'S trying to do. I'm beginning to doubt it
Hague competent? Remember Hague barely added to the Tories' seat tally or vote share in 2001.
do you think he was wrong to recall SO? seems to me that was the right thing to do, even if the practicalities were bungled
He didn't actually have a choice once he had been made aware the military action was likely and not that far in the future.
He'd already promised his own backbenches that there would be a vote of some kind if he was going to arm the Syrian rebels.
David Cameron promises vote on arming Syrian rebels
BRITISH TROOPS will be on the Syrian border within a week it emerged last night, even as David Cameron pledged not to arm Syrian rebels without a full vote in parliament.
More than 350 Royal Marines are being sent to Jordan as part of a multi-national exercise.
Expressing fears over “dangerous and extremist” al Qaeda elements within the rebel alliance levelled against President Bashar al-Assad, the Prime Minster declared: “I want nothing to do with them.”
However, he said Britain must continue to provide non-lethal aid.
Speaking on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News today, Mr Cameron said: “Assad is now guilty of the most appalling crimes against his people: 90,000 people dead and some of them through the use of chemical weapons.”
Meanwhile Egypt is cutting diplomatic ties with Syria and wants an international no-fly zone to be imposed.
So the idea that he could authorise an actual attack on Syria without consulting parliament is pie in the sky.
It makes it all the more inexplicable how he misjudged the tory backbench mood if it wasn't for the fact that he's done it several times before and he keeps doing it again and again.
that Cameron could take his eye of the ball like that doesn't seem surprising, but you'd think someone would be on it? I have been of the opinion that Hague is competent and has some idea what he'S trying to do. I'm beginning to doubt it
Hague competent? Remember Hague barely added to the Tories' seat tally or vote share in 2001.
i was thinking in the foreign office/foreign affairs rather than in general. but then, you're right, that does undermine my point somewhat
Cameron has miscalculated twice, both in his recall of parliament and also in his reliance on the 3 line whip. Lynton Crosby should now go home to Australia to see if he can help Abbott, he is of no help to Cameron.
'I don't think Cameron is unique among our party leaders in that. Sadly, some on here refuse to recognise that EdM was in an equally difficult position and that, like Cameron, he did what he felt was best.'
I would have some sympathy for Ed if he had been consistent,on Tuesday he said he was going to support the government and they changed the motion to accommodate his concerns but then yesterday he decided to play party politics.
'I don't think Cameron is unique among our party leaders in that. Sadly, some on here refuse to recognise that EdM was in an equally difficult position and that, like Cameron, he did what he felt was best.'
I would have some sympathy for Ed if he had been consistent,on Tuesday he said he was going to support the government and they changed the motion to accommodate his concerns but then yesterday he decided to play party politics.
Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant 20m I have learned that at least 7 Labour Shadow Ministers said they'd resign if Ed Miliband continued to support an attack on Syria.
Still can't believe that for one of the most important votes of Cameron's premiership two government members were having a chat in a room next to the division lobbies and didn't realise they were supposed to be voting.
You should re-read the threads from earlier in the week. There were plenty of demands from people on here that parliament should get a vote on any action, even if it meant a recall of parliament.
He recalled parliament for a vote, and rightly so IMHO.
If he had not, then those same people would be complaining that action was taken without parliamentary approval. I would guess that you would be one of them.
He could not win. Perhaps you should remember that.
I don't think Cameron is unique among our party leaders in that. Sadly, some on here refuse to recognise that EdM was in an equally difficult position and that, like Cameron, he did what he felt was best.
If he's not unique in that, perhaps you should cut him some slack when he's in that situation.
But generally, Cameron was in a much more difficult position than Miliband. After all, he was the one faced with coming up with a plan of what to do.
Cameron came up with a plan. Miliband criticised the plan, and Cameron altered the plan. Miliband still led his party to vote against the altered plan, without having a workable alternative.
I don't agree that Miliband gave succour to Assad. But I do think that he is irresponsible for relying on nonsense phrases like 'compelling evidence' without having that vital workable alternative.
All he has said today is that he wants more diplomacy (which has not worked for the last two years), and that the government should not wash its hands of Syria, and instead find other ways of putting pressure on the country.
All good words. But how the hell are they meant to do that?
Still can't believe that for one of the most important votes of Cameron's premiership two government members were having a chat in a room next to the division lobbies and didn't realise they were supposed to be voting.
It's bizarre. Also strange that so many ministers were away. 272 is an unbelievably poor govt vote given there are 359 on the govt benches.
We are well past sticking to the subject of the thread header, but the gist of the article is "Lets have lots of new young faces to peddle ideas that are even older than the "old" ideas Henry G despises". It is the Labour equivalent of "Young fogies"
The problem with the "Living Wage" idea is that it focuses attention even more on improving the lot of people who by world standards are very well off indeed - Milliband's "squeezed middle". At least they have something to have squeezed in the first place. It is a UK centered approach that totally ignores the genuinely poor who don't have the good fortune to live in the UK.
You should re-read the threads from earlier in the week. There were plenty of demands from people on here that parliament should get a vote on any action, even if it meant a recall of parliament.
He recalled parliament for a vote, and rightly so IMHO.
If he had not, then those same people would be complaining that action was taken without parliamentary approval. I would guess that you would be one of them.
He could not win. Perhaps you should remember that.
I don't think Cameron is unique among our party leaders in that. Sadly, some on here refuse to recognise that EdM was in an equally difficult position and that, like Cameron, he did what he felt was best.
If he's not unique in that, perhaps you should cut him some slack when he's in that situation.
But generally, Cameron was in a much more difficult position than Miliband. After all, he was the one faced with coming up with a plan of what to do.
Cameron came up with a plan. Miliband criticised the plan, and Cameron altered the plan. Miliband still led his party to vote against the altered plan, without having a workable alternative.
I don't agree that Miliband gave succour to Assad. But I do think that he is irresponsible for relying on nonsense phrases like 'compelling evidence' without having that vital workable alternative.
All he has said today is that he wants more diplomacy (which has not worked for the last two years), and that the government should not wash its hands of Syria, and instead find other ways of putting pressure on the country.
All good words. But how the hell are they meant to do that?
He has no answers, no plan.
My guess is that "compelling evidence" was a line from one of his would-be-resigning shadow ministers. Someone who said that line because of the Iraq/WMD debacle.
Still can't believe that for one of the most important votes of Cameron's premiership two government members were having a chat in a room next to the division lobbies and didn't realise they were supposed to be voting.
It's bizarre. Also strange that so many ministers were away. 272 is an unbelievably poor govt vote given there are 359 on the govt benches.
Ironic that one of the two was Mark Simmonds, the MP for Boston & Skegness, which just happens to be UKIP's top target at the next election.
The compromises that Miliband had to undertake to hold his party together yesterday were incredible. To have only lost one junior minister was no doubt an achievement. It is clear that the line that was sold to the shadow cabinet was that they would not say "no" but they would say "yes" subject to conditions they could determine were never met. Basically the euro tests all over again.
Some might say this was deeply dishonest and that it shows that Miliband never had any intention of agreeing with the government no matter what they did simply because he could not without his own party falling apart. I think, regrettably, it showed once again that the Labour party is more focussed on winning power than the tories and are willing to do what it takes to achieve that.
So while tory backbenchers and incompetent ministers shot their own leader in the back with varying degrees of glee standing on their principles without regard to the consequences the Labour shadow cabinet bit it's tongue and allowed Miliband to appear to offer something they had no intention of delivering.
The consequence is a badly damaged PM, a fatally damaged Foreign Secretary, an enormous blow to the perception of competence on the part of the government and Labour a step closer to power. Where does the national interest stand in relation to that? Does the question even need to be asked?
Mr. Observer, abstenstions don't count as supporting the other said. There were 30 blue rebels and 9 yellow rebels.
Has anyone done the maths on how many MPs were unable to attend, overseas, etc?
84 voting members didn't take part in the second division. But since there's no such thing as a positive abstention we can't know how many were in the vicinity of the Commons at the time.
Heading through both lobbies is a positive abstention.
It is, unofficially. I think it's frowned upon by the Commons.
Jason Cowan @jason_manc Decisive Ed: Happy over the vote result last night and this morning. Now he isn't. Also thinks we shouldn't "wash our hands" of Syria.
Ed confirms he did not get the result he wanted. 7 Shadow Cabinet Ministers threaten to resign He is not Obama's Sock Puppet. He is not even his own Sock Puppet. He is the sock puppet for the Shadow cabinet, most of whom he will have to remove if he wants to get in to Number 10. Strong Leadership there Ed...."now where does my middle finger go and I have a problem with my thumb...mummy"
Surely he's just going to say he wanted to vote for the amendment, and then ask what was so objectionable about the amendment to Cameron.
In that case he has to explain why, given that parliament had not accepted his amendment, he led his party through the No lobby on the government motion.
Given that they were quite similar, and there would have been a second vote before any military action, he was dancing on pin-heads by not doing so. Or, more to the point, playing silly party-political games on a matter of grave import.
Still can't believe that for one of the most important votes of Cameron's premiership two government members were having a chat in a room next to the division lobbies and didn't realise they were supposed to be voting.
Sounds like an excuse to me. Good way of avoiding voting for the action whilst pretending they meant to.
I'm not sure this is going to be as bad for Cameron as everyone thinks. Sure he didn't get what he wanted, but he didn't come up with some ludicrous lies to push it through in the way Blair did. He presented his side of the argument and then it got voted down, exactly the way democracy is supposed to work.
People are sick of "strong" leaders pushing through what they think should happen and to hell with everyone else.
Also let's say Assad causes more atrocities in the future he can say that he favoured action to help the innocent victims, without having to deal with any fallout from our troops getting involved.
Presumably the result he wanted was for the Labour motion to carry.
Yes, and it didn't.
But he had a choice after that. Even if he had trouble with his shadow cabinet (which is certainly very likely), all he had to do in the second vote was instruct the party to abstain, or allow a free vote, if he really wanted to leave options open for the UK.
Comments
English muffin = Freedom muffin
English mustard = Freedom mustard
'prevented from doing the right thing by sneaky, duplicitous, partisan weasel tory backbenchers...'
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/373390086035226624/photo/1
Looking at the bank bad-debt provisions, it all looks pretty healthy at the moment.
Again, Labour's amendment was a do-noting amendment.
Maybe it was. But Cameron should have supported it anyway. Otherwise he was just playing petty party politics with a vital blah
Alternatively, perhaps Miliband and Cameron, and all concerned, simply did what they thought was right because they take issues of war and peace gravely seriously? Shurely not?
The irony for Labour of all this is that it has opted out of probably the most left-wing, humanitarian military alliance ever assembled.
That's simply a ridiculous position. And Miliband is intelligent enough to know that.
You know this. I know you know this. So why the quibbling about who is borrowing, or not paying back their debts?
Perhaps earnings growth will soon pick up and the growth in credit will not accelerate, so that the growth in personal debt will be below the growth in earnings, and it will not be unsustainable. I'm sure you'll let me know if this proves to be the case.
So I guess that puts an end to Labour's complaint to Sir Jeremy about remarks that Miliband was giving succour to Assad.
Thats what the lefties voted for.
Ed played a blunder
Accusing one and not the other of "playing party politics" is pathetic.
Even the usually level-headed Tories on PB have lost their marbles today.
Of course it matters hugely who is borrowing. If it is someone with a steady income which covers outgoings comfortably, with no other debt, and with collateral in a house, who takes out a loan to buy a car, that is completely different to someone with no assets and already maxed out on credit cards and spending more than they earn taking out a loan to splash out on a fancy holiday.
Stands idle when patients die in NHS hospitals.
Stands idle when children are gassed in Syria.
Plus ça change.
As Britons clearly do not believe their own foreign minister, the chance of them believing the Turkish equivalent would appear to be slim at best.
Any rate apart from exactly that of average earnings tends either to infinity or zero. The problem comes either from rates which are markedly different from those of average earnings (either way), or prolonged periods where the rate of one exceeds that of the other.
We're not near either of those conditions yet but it is something to keep an eye on.
@PittTheBlogger @LouiseMensch My source spoke not just of anger with Ed Miliband but incredulity the Labour Party had taken this step.
Labour making friends in Washington..
Cammers should consult Ozzie about efficiency savings. Surely we can split DfID between the FCO and MoD, no? And so we need to fund the DCMS...?
No ministerial shuffles; just a reappraisal of duties and responsibilities. A cabinet comprised of fewer departments - stares at the mock-ministries of Wales, Ulster and Scotland - would be more inline with our new place in the world....
In contrast, Ed Miliband and the Labour front bench seem not to have any disagreement of consequence at all with the government's position, once it had been adjusted to take account of their concerns, and, what is more, they told the PM that.
But Cameron at least had a way forward. What is Miliband's alternative way forward? He doesn't have one. And I can't believe he believes that is right.
Mr. Jessop/Nabavi, quite so. Many Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative MPs had genuine misgivings about action. Miliband merely continued opposition for the sake of it, cementing his standing as an opportunistic little shit. If he really opposed action that's one thing, but he initially supported it and Cameron moved so far to meet him that the Government line was for all intents and purposes identical to what the Labour frontbench wanted. And which they then opposed.
Whilst glad we aren't intervening the vote yesterday (both times) was rather farcical.
LOL
Why on earth aren't the PB Hodges celebrating?
"Owt good on't telly? there now thats better
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html
285 v. 272
LOL!
If Cameron didn't want to play party politics then having his sources leak this. Is sadly as sure a way to convince anyone that Cameron was playing party politics right alongside little Ed.
What on earth did you think little Ed would do after that? Go running and begging to Cameron for forgiveness or convince him that there was no point at all trying to go for a consensual approach? Here's a clue, it wasn't the first one.
If Cammie and Number 10 wanted to be taken seriously then that ended it and we all remember the chuckling from PB tories at the time when they heard that. So all this whining like a toddler now about how 'it isn't fair!' just won't cut it.
You start playing games with spin then on your own head be it. Both sides changed positions and both sides tried to get their backbenches and as many as possible to vote for them.
Seems reasonable.
LOL
Why on earth aren't the PB Hodges celebrating?
Hodges "leaves" the Labour Party. Plato "joins" the Tory Party.
What next? Pope "converts" to Catholicism?
Seems reasonable.
Indeed. If serious decisions involving attacking a country can't be reduced to calling the leader of the opposition a A F***ing C**t And A Copper-Bottomed S***, then where's the fun in that?
I'm sure we all remember Tony Blair calling IDS a b*** c******* w**** in a jovial manner just before the commons voted on Iraq. How we all laughed! Such jolly japes.
Two MPs did this over Syria.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php
You can't know for sure, but for a 3 line whip you can usually account for a chunk of them.
"It's a pun on the story of Paul Revere, right?"
Pedant alert. Trust the newspapers to get it wrong.
Paul Revere actually warned "The Regulars are coming." The colonists still regarded themselves as British at that time.
Incidentally, British troops stopped Revere, confiscated his horse and sent him home like the naughty boy he was.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS7JHrWIIAAa8m8.jpg:large
He is is own Sock Puppet.
"...I think that was less a vote specifically against any possible military intervention in Syria as an expression of a lack of confidence in the ability or willingness of the Government to think through the consequences of its policies over a far wider front that Syria"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100233459/if-mr-cameron-is-ousted-from-no-10-it-will-be-by-his-own-hand/
What next? Pope "converts" to Catholicism?
http://www.johnnyrobish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bear-Shits-in-Woods.jpg
Golly! ;^ )
Ed Miliband Going to intervene David? You and whose army? Not yours.
PS I did something! I actually did something!
Boris Johnson *sniggers*
Tony Blair u ok hun?
Proper lol.
There will be no second attempts, not even in the face of yet more horrors such as the napalming of a school this morning. As I said last night Britain does not want to play any more and it will be a very brave PM who tries to persuade us otherwise.
I thought the Osborne interview on R4 this morning was very good and recognised that. I also thought the Humph was right to focus on the implications of the vote for our standing in the world and the way that we think of ourselves.
It may well be that this was long overdue and that we have been deluding ourselves for too long but every future PM will bear the consequences of this decision, including Miliband if elected. That does seem more likely now. God help us.
He recalled parliament for a vote, and rightly so IMHO.
If he had not, then those same people would be complaining that action was taken without parliamentary approval. I would guess that you would be one of them.
He could not win. Perhaps you should remember that.
FROM @ISABELHARDMAN ON TWITTER: (about 14 hours ago)
Doesn't add up. If you don't hear a bell, well you don't hear it. Hmm... Tim you may well have been right a few hours back...
Is 6-1 still a good price to get on Greening next out though ?
He'd already promised his own backbenches that there would be a vote of some kind if he was going to arm the Syrian rebels. So the idea that he could authorise an actual attack on Syria without consulting parliament is pie in the sky.
It makes it all the more inexplicable how he misjudged the tory backbench mood if it wasn't for the fact that he's done it several times before and he keeps doing it again and again.
All this Miliband doesn't support Syrian babies crap is just tiresome
It makes it all the more inexplicable how he misjudged the tory backbench mood if it wasn't for the fact that he's done it several times before and he keeps doing it again and again.
that Cameron could take his eye of the ball like that doesn't seem surprising, but you'd think someone would be on it? I have been of the opinion that Hague is competent and has some idea what he'S trying to do. I'm beginning to doubt it
Hague competent? Remember Hague barely added to the Tories' seat tally or vote share in 2001.
i was thinking in the foreign office/foreign affairs rather than in general. but then, you're right, that does undermine my point somewhat
'I don't think Cameron is unique among our party leaders in that. Sadly, some on here refuse to recognise that EdM was in an equally difficult position and that, like Cameron, he did what he felt was best.'
I would have some sympathy for Ed if he had been consistent,on Tuesday he said he was going to support the government and they changed the motion to accommodate his concerns but then yesterday he decided to play party politics.
I have learned that at least 7 Labour Shadow Ministers said they'd resign if Ed Miliband continued to support an attack on Syria.
Ed, let me give you a free tip. You have to decide what you want, and then you have to vote for it, not against it.
But generally, Cameron was in a much more difficult position than Miliband. After all, he was the one faced with coming up with a plan of what to do.
Cameron came up with a plan. Miliband criticised the plan, and Cameron altered the plan. Miliband still led his party to vote against the altered plan, without having a workable alternative.
I don't agree that Miliband gave succour to Assad. But I do think that he is irresponsible for relying on nonsense phrases like 'compelling evidence' without having that vital workable alternative.
All he has said today is that he wants more diplomacy (which has not worked for the last two years), and that the government should not wash its hands of Syria, and instead find other ways of putting pressure on the country.
All good words. But how the hell are they meant to do that?
He has no answers, no plan.
The problem with the "Living Wage" idea is that it focuses attention even more on improving the lot of people who by world standards are very well off indeed - Milliband's "squeezed middle". At least they have something to have squeezed in the first place. It is a UK centered approach that totally ignores the genuinely poor who don't have the good fortune to live in the UK.
Some might say this was deeply dishonest and that it shows that Miliband never had any intention of agreeing with the government no matter what they did simply because he could not without his own party falling apart. I think, regrettably, it showed once again that the Labour party is more focussed on winning power than the tories and are willing to do what it takes to achieve that.
So while tory backbenchers and incompetent ministers shot their own leader in the back with varying degrees of glee standing on their principles without regard to the consequences the Labour shadow cabinet bit it's tongue and allowed Miliband to appear to offer something they had no intention of delivering.
The consequence is a badly damaged PM, a fatally damaged Foreign Secretary, an enormous blow to the perception of competence on the part of the government and Labour a step closer to power. Where does the national interest stand in relation to that? Does the question even need to be asked?
Decisive Ed: Happy over the vote result last night and this morning. Now he isn't. Also thinks we shouldn't "wash our hands" of Syria.
7 Shadow Cabinet Ministers threaten to resign
He is not Obama's Sock Puppet.
He is not even his own Sock Puppet.
He is the sock puppet for the Shadow cabinet, most of whom he will have to remove if he wants to get in to Number 10.
Strong Leadership there Ed...."now where does my middle finger go and I have a problem with my thumb...mummy"
Given that they were quite similar, and there would have been a second vote before any military action, he was dancing on pin-heads by not doing so. Or, more to the point, playing silly party-political games on a matter of grave import.
I'm not sure this is going to be as bad for Cameron as everyone thinks. Sure he didn't get what he wanted, but he didn't come up with some ludicrous lies to push it through in the way Blair did. He presented his side of the argument and then it got voted down, exactly the way democracy is supposed to work.
People are sick of "strong" leaders pushing through what they think should happen and to hell with everyone else.
Also let's say Assad causes more atrocities in the future he can say that he favoured action to help the innocent victims, without having to deal with any fallout from our troops getting involved.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
(Now deleted)...
'RT @andybell5news: @EdMilibandMP confirms to me that last night's vote was not the result he wanted - more at 5 and 630 @5_News
Pang of conscience already,should have thought of that when he was playing games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZpN2fRfmbAA
But he had a choice after that. Even if he had trouble with his shadow cabinet (which is certainly very likely), all he had to do in the second vote was instruct the party to abstain, or allow a free vote, if he really wanted to leave options open for the UK.
But he didn't. He wanted to play silly games.