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.
But he didn't. He wanted to play silly games.
Nope, an abstention was as good as a vote in favour, and Labour could not support the government motion for the reasons Miliband laid out in his speech. I know you'll never be able to accept this because of your belief Labour is a venal, unprincipled political party, but there you go.
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
I repeat ad nauseum .... Hague is a useless donkey
'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.'
So your confirming that Ed acted purely on party political lines,at least that's crystal clear.
"...Mr Cameron vowed that Britain will continue to press for a “robust response” to “condemn” the Assad’s regime’s actions through diplomatic channels. Speaking at Downing Street about his reasons for recalling Parliament for a vote, Mr Cameron said he had wanted to act to “in a different way” to previous prime ministers and properly consult Parliament.
“I was faced with three things I wanted to do right and do in the right way,” he said. “First of all, to condemn absolutely and respond properly to an appalling war crime that took place in Syria. Secondly, to work with our strongest and most important ally who had made a request for British help. Thirdly, to act as a democrat, to act in a different way to previous prime ministers and properly consult Parliament.
“I wanted to do all those three things. Obviously politics is difficult. That involved going to Parliament, making an argument in a strong and principled way but then listening to Parliament. I think the American people and President Obama will understand that.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3856269.ece
will the public see EdM as strong or weak because he delivered a (now explicable) mess of a speech in the Commons on account of the prospect of losing a shedload of his shadow ministers?
To me this isn't the mark of strong leadership. If he didn't want to rule out military action he shouldn't have played such a tricksy game in the commons/with Cam. He should also have stood up to his cabinet.
If he did want to rule out military action or if it was deemed that those ministers have input into Lab policy then he should have gone all out guns blazing (ahem) on the no intervention route.
He did neither which was the worst of all possible routes. And I bet it won't be easy for Ed to look himself in the mirror in the days to come. Nothing to do with Syrian babies and everything to do with being a strong conviction politician with integrity. Or not.
We bomb tonight? - UN inspectors reportedly leave Friday a further day earlier than indicated 24 hours ago. This getting out has been led by the US telling them to get out which may indicate the timeline. Truth is that the range of effective targets has diminished since the Syrians have taken the opportunity thanks to originally unplanned delay to take precautions. Ironically the farting about may well mean more time and firepower to get equivalent results.
Intelligence? - 3 reasons why some info genuinely can't be made public 1- It will reveal the channels monitored 2- It will reveal certain nameable people who are being monitored because not all are and some maybe have taken their comms security as seriously as they should, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not. 3- Some the intelligence was generated by a 3rd party not the US directly
Just as I mentioned on the night of the alleged attack, they likelihood was that the US and others knew what was going down. It is now confirmed that they had indications in the minutes and hours after and somewhat before, though reportedly they didnt put two and two together before or just didn't care to raise it.
Heads Down _ Certain Islamic extremist groups fighting in Syria have in recent days ferried their leading lights out of the way and told their own foot soldiers to hunker down, fearing the US will strike them
Which option to strike? - There is a danger of striking with a limp wrist and there are some in the US administration who have been pointing this out. Will be interesting to see what goes. Contrary to claims, chemical weapons infrastructure, not just delivery mechanisms, was on the options list, tricky as it is to hit. This would require the use of bombers, not just missiles. Problem is the US has reportedly lost sight of some of it.
So why did Cameron want to force a vote before Kerry's speech and the US intelligence reports? What a mess he's made of it.
No tim. Not right. He accepted substantially all the Lab amendments as agreed (apparently) the previous day. It was a vote in principle (in more ways than one) it was not a roll back of the Typhoon jets.
My man made mistakes absolutely no doubt about that, in timing, failure to consult early enough and not to canvas his own backbenchers. Fine. But be big enough to admit that your man got it wrong also. He ended up with a result that he apparently didn't want and has, in so doing, substantially inhibited not only the principle (there's that word again) of opposing tyrants - I know you agree with this bit - but also has lain himself open to charges of politicking, to say nothing of diminishing Britain's position in the world which, while not always important for the Left, is nevertheless a realpolitikal factor in state relations.
The British Chambers of Commerce upward revision to 1.3% of its UK GDP growth forecast for 2013 is broadly in line with other forecast revisions.
This I believe reflects a couple of factors:
1. Natural caution in a climate of volatile performance. It should be noted that less than six months ago media and expert discussion was all about whether the UK would avoid a 'triple dip' recession. And we still have a quarter showing contraction within the previous twelve months. The official OBR forecast of 0.6% also remains, even though this has now been exceeded by some measure in the first half. In this climate, forecasters seem only willing to count growh they can clearly see when making short term predictions. And this caution is not just in the UK. The German Economics Ministry, for example, is still holding to its 0.3% growth forecast for the whole of 2013, when their Q1 growth was 0% and Q2 0.7%. Similarly, the EU forecast for Eurozone growth in the second half of 2013 is still for 0.0% growth.
2. The high risks of external shock. BRICS growth is falling albeit from high levels; the Eurozone has only just emerged tentatively from a recession which has lasted from 2011; the outcome of Japan's Abenomics experiment remains uncertain; and, the US economy is having to absord backloaded tax increases and spending cuts due to Obama's delayed fiscal consolidation measures. The political situation in the Middle East won't be helping either.
In spite of the above, it does seem that early indicators from the first two months of Q3 are showing that the UK economy is continuing to grow and at an accelerated rate. Markit PMIs for all sectors have risen in both months and interim monthly ONS outcomes have also shown growth.
SWIFT, which bases its predictions of growth on aggregrated B2B transactions and whose forecasts have been very reliable since it started its index last year, is showing a 'nowcast' of 0.5% for UK 2013 Q3 and a 'forecast' of 0.4% for Q4.
If SWIFT are right then UK growth for the calendar year is likely to be around 2.0% which matches both your and my gut feel. I am confident it probably matches the same gut feel of external forecasters but then they are held up to ridicule in the event of their predictions being wrong!
The British Chambers of Commerce upward revision to 1.3% of its UK GDP growth forecast for 2013 is broadly in line with other forecast revisions.
This I believe reflects a couple of factors:
1. Natural caution in a climate of volatile performance. It should be noted that less than six months ago media and expert discussion was all about whether the UK would avoid a 'triple dip' recession. And we still have a quarter showing contraction within the previous twelve months. The official OBR forecast of 0.6% also remains, even though this has now been exceeded by some measure in the first half. In this climate, forecasters seem only willing to count growh they can clearly see when making short term predictions. And this caution is not just in the UK. The German Economics Ministry, for example, is still holding to its 0.3% growth forecast for the whole of 2013, when their Q1 growth was 0% and Q2 0.7%. Similarly, the EU forecast for Eurozone growth in the second half of 2013 is still for 0.0% growth.
2. The high risks of external shock. BRICS growth is falling albeit from high levels; the Eurozone has only just emerged tentatively from a recession which has lasted from 2011; the outcome of Japan's Abenomics experiment remains uncertain; and, the US economy is having to absord backloaded tax increases and spending cuts due to Obama's delayed fiscal consolidation measures. The political situation in the Middle East won't be helping either.
In spite of the above, it does seem that early indicators from the first two months of Q3 are showing that the UK economy is continuing to grow and at an accelerated rate. Markit PMIs for all sectors have risen in both months and interim monthly ONS outcomes have also shown growth.
SWIFT, which bases its predictions of growth on aggregrated B2B transactions and whose forecasts have been very reliable since it started its index last year, is showing a 'nowcast' of 0.5% for UK 2013 Q3 and a 'forecast' of 0.4% for Q4.
If SWIFT are right then UK growth for the calendar year is likely to be around 2.0% which matches both your and my gut feel. I am confident it probably matches the same gut feel of external forecasters but then they are held up to ridicule in the event of their predictions being wrong!
The intelligence was largely available 3 days ago, there isn't too much new added since.
Maybe the JIC erring too much on the side of caution?
It is a question of trust. Government Ministers and certain other high ranking politicians, such as the Leader of the Opposition, are entrusted by the State as Privy Councillors to view and appraise state intelligence reports and assessments (on a need to know basis).
It is not the role of legislature to scrutinise intelligence output nor should it be. The legislature must trust government ministers and party leaders in their representation of threats and risks to national security.
What has broken down is the trust in which government ministers are held and this failure is a direct consequence of the failure of Blair to represent intelligence findings and conclusions to the public and to Parliament.
In short, once Blair had 'lied' to parliament and the public, he made the task of every subsequent Prime Minister more difficult.
Similarly, the trust placed in the Leader of the Opposition to view intelligence output in his capactity as a Privy Councillor has also been breached. What future PM will accord a LOTO the same access to information and courtesy, now that this process has been perverted for domestic party political gain?
Cameron may have been incompetent in his handling of his party yesterday but at least he didn't traduce the nation and breach the trust of the Crown.
I heard the JIC's caveat on their report the other morning. Sensible I thought, after intelligence's failures in Iraq. Then I heard various (Mainly Labour bods) I think saying not good enough etc.
Tell me this, would they prefer the LIE of the intelligence report saying 110% the truth, copper bottomed, couldn't be wrong in a million years or a thoughtful 'We're pretty sure this is the case, can't be 100% certain - but all the evidence points to this conclusion'. Well to my mind the bar of 'proof' was being put way way too high by the doubting Ed. Get this - the 'proof' Mr Miliband is looking for wasn't going to happen, won't happen and never will happen in intelligence matters. UNLESS YOU MAKE STUFF UP, and lie about the strength of what you actually had. No the JIC couldn't be absolutely sure, to my mind intelligence proof probably is to a courtroom proof as the courtroom proof is to a scientific proof. At some point you needs to pay yer money and takes yer choice.
Apart from the Cheshire Farmer, who is a busted flush anyway, none of the more vociferous lefties seem to be around..bit ashamed perhaps
You can just hear tim, IOS and Surbiton crying into their one calorie diet-cokes, "the world would have been a safer and better place with President Romney".
@tim - And a LOTO who resorts to such brazen opportunism is beyond contempt.
Cameron blew it, same pattern every time, the jutting jawed chinlessness combined with an arrogance that trips him up. He couldn't get 100 MPs on the govt side to vote for a watered down vote and is now thrashing around trying to find people to blame. Same with boundary changes, useless
This is completely different to boundary changes. Noone is going to die as a result of boundary changes. Clegg realised this was far too important to play politics with and so should have Miliband.
The intelligence was largely available 3 days ago, there isn't too much new added since.
Maybe the JIC erring too much on the side of caution?
The intelligence was available 3 days ago? I was struck by Kerry's presentation = "we know" the rockets were fired from regime territory; "we know" the rockets landed in rebel-held territory; "we know" that preparations were made for the attack several days beforehand; etc, etc. This was probably US intel and therefore although the JIC might have know about it, they did not feel that they could announce it in this way. As the "expert" on TV said, if Kerry had made the same presentation a day or two earlier the HoC vote might have been different. The no vote comprised largely Labour surrender monkeys, Labour politicking and frit Tory MPs worried about their seats.
The intelligence was largely available 3 days ago, there isn't too much new added since.
Maybe the JIC erring too much on the side of caution?
The intelligence was available 3 days ago? I was struck by Kerry's presentation = "we know" the rockets were fired from regime territory; "we know" the rockets landed in rebel-held territory; "we know" that preparations were made for the attack several days beforehand; etc, etc. This was probably US intel and therefore although the JIC might have know about it, they did not feel that they could announce it in this way. As the "expert" on TV said, if Kerry had made the same presentation a day or two earlier the HoC vote might have been different. The no vote comprised largely Labour surrender monkeys, Labour politicking and frit Tory MPs worried about their seats.
I would be surprised if the JIC and US intelligence is any different. But I know if I was the JIC presenting that there is no way in hell I'd be 'sexing it up' or presenting it as stronger than it was.
Mr Miliband changed his mind on Thursday morning. Having forced Mr Cameron into a series of concessions in the days leading up to the vote, the opposition leader decided to press his advantage by voting against the prime minister. Despite stopping short of authorising strikes against Syria, Conservative officials had said the Commons motion represented backing for military action “in principle”.
Some in the shadow cabinet are worried about the impact on Labour’s relations with the Obama administration – several expressed concern on Wednesday that Mr Miliband had not talked to the US and French presidents while making up his mind.
They are also worried about the broader direction of Labour’s foreign policy. Some in the party are pressing Mr Miliband to match Mr Cameron’s commitment to hold a referendum on Britain’s role in the EU. Critics worry that Labour risks looking like an isolationist party withdrawing from its international commitments.
Apart from the Cheshire Farmer, who is a busted flush anyway, none of the more vociferous lefties seem to be around..bit ashamed perhaps
You can just hear tim, IOS and Surbiton crying into their one calorie diet-cokes, "the world would have been a safer and better place with President Romney".
John O! You are the diet coke of evil - only one calorie, not evil enough!
Let me clarify. The raw intelligence feeds started before the chemical weapons attack, upto 3 or more days before, as well as the immediate hours upto the attack. Additional feeds came after the attack, some of which indicated that there was a bout of finger pointing going on over the incident.
All this, however, needed full assessment. 3rd parties to the conflict had spotted activity in the days and hours leading up but apparently misinterpreted it in isolation, or just refused to acknowledge it.
The overall assessment of the picture of events was pretty much done and dusted 3 days ago. There hasn't been any sign of anything particularly new or dramatic since.
We bomb tonight? - UN inspectors reportedly leave Friday a further day earlier than indicated 24 hours ago. This getting out has been led by the US telling them to get out which may indicate the timeline. Truth is that the range of effective targets has diminished since the Syrians have taken the opportunity thanks to originally unplanned delay to take precautions. Ironically the farting about may well mean more time and firepower to get equivalent results.
Intelligence? - 3 reasons why some info genuinely can't be made public 1- It will reveal the channels monitored 2- It will reveal certain nameable people who are being monitored because not all are and some maybe have taken their comms security as seriously as they should, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not. 3- Some the intelligence was generated by a 3rd party not the US directly
Just as I mentioned on the night of the alleged attack, they likelihood was that the US and others knew what was going down. It is now confirmed that they had indications in the minutes and hours after and somewhat before, though reportedly they didnt put two and two together before or just didn't care to raise it.
Heads Down _ Certain Islamic extremist groups fighting in Syria have in recent days ferried their leading lights out of the way and told their own foot soldiers to hunker down, fearing the US will strike them
Which option to strike? - There is a danger of striking with a limp wrist and there are some in the US administration who have been pointing this out. Will be interesting to see what goes. Contrary to claims, chemical weapons infrastructure, not just delivery mechanisms, was on the options list, tricky as it is to hit. This would require the use of bombers, not just missiles. Problem is the US has reportedly lost sight of some of it.
Are you part of the Intelligence community and in whose pay are you ? Does it start with an "M" ?
Cameron couldn't deliver, it appears he didnt really try, there were MPs at weddings, in "soundproofed rooms" and on holiday. A PM who doesn't understand his own party and can't deliver on his rhetoric is useless.
How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What it does show that is encouraging is that he's a very smart politician and much more courageous than any of us thought. Infact the only person on here who got him anywhere near right was Mike. He is indeed ruthless and astute.
Comments
I repeat ad nauseum .... Hague is a useless donkey
'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.'
So your confirming that Ed acted purely on party political lines,at least that's crystal clear.
Fawlty Towers and great herds of wildebeest springs to mind.
“I was faced with three things I wanted to do right and do in the right way,” he said. “First of all, to condemn absolutely and respond properly to an appalling war crime that took place in Syria. Secondly, to work with our strongest and most important ally who had made a request for British help. Thirdly, to act as a democrat, to act in a different way to previous prime ministers and properly consult Parliament.
“I wanted to do all those three things. Obviously politics is difficult. That involved going to Parliament, making an argument in a strong and principled way but then listening to Parliament. I think the American people and President Obama will understand that.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3856269.ece
will the public see EdM as strong or weak because he delivered a (now explicable) mess of a speech in the Commons on account of the prospect of losing a shedload of his shadow ministers?
To me this isn't the mark of strong leadership. If he didn't want to rule out military action he shouldn't have played such a tricksy game in the commons/with Cam. He should also have stood up to his cabinet.
If he did want to rule out military action or if it was deemed that those ministers have input into Lab policy then he should have gone all out guns blazing (ahem) on the no intervention route.
He did neither which was the worst of all possible routes. And I bet it won't be easy for Ed to look himself in the mirror in the days to come. Nothing to do with Syrian babies and everything to do with being a strong conviction politician with integrity. Or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs
Very popular in parts of Damascus right now
Some quick takes of note:
We bomb tonight? - UN inspectors reportedly leave Friday a further day earlier than indicated 24 hours ago. This getting out has been led by the US telling them to get out which may indicate the timeline. Truth is that the range of effective targets has diminished since the Syrians have taken the opportunity thanks to originally unplanned delay to take precautions. Ironically the farting about may well mean more time and firepower to get equivalent results.
Intelligence? - 3 reasons why some info genuinely can't be made public
1- It will reveal the channels monitored
2- It will reveal certain nameable people who are being monitored because not all are and some maybe have taken their comms security as seriously as they should, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not.
3- Some the intelligence was generated by a 3rd party not the US directly
Just as I mentioned on the night of the alleged attack, they likelihood was that the US and others knew what was going down. It is now confirmed that they had indications in the minutes and hours after and somewhat before, though reportedly they didnt put two and two together before or just didn't care to raise it.
Heads Down _ Certain Islamic extremist groups fighting in Syria have in recent days ferried their leading lights out of the way and told their own foot soldiers to hunker down, fearing the US will strike them
Which option to strike? - There is a danger of striking with a limp wrist and there are some in the US administration who have been pointing this out. Will be interesting to see what goes. Contrary to claims, chemical weapons infrastructure, not just delivery mechanisms, was on the options list, tricky as it is to hit. This would require the use of bombers, not just missiles. Problem is the US has reportedly lost sight of some of it.
My man made mistakes absolutely no doubt about that, in timing, failure to consult early enough and not to canvas his own backbenchers. Fine. But be big enough to admit that your man got it wrong also. He ended up with a result that he apparently didn't want and has, in so doing, substantially inhibited not only the principle (there's that word again) of opposing tyrants - I know you agree with this bit - but also has lain himself open to charges of politicking, to say nothing of diminishing Britain's position in the world which, while not always important for the Left, is nevertheless a realpolitikal factor in state relations.
GDP growth forecasts
The British Chambers of Commerce upward revision to 1.3% of its UK GDP growth forecast for 2013 is broadly in line with other forecast revisions.
This I believe reflects a couple of factors:
1. Natural caution in a climate of volatile performance. It should be noted that less than six months ago media and expert discussion was all about whether the UK would avoid a 'triple dip' recession. And we still have a quarter showing contraction within the previous twelve months. The official OBR forecast of 0.6% also remains, even though this has now been exceeded by some measure in the first half. In this climate, forecasters seem only willing to count growh they can clearly see when making short term predictions. And this caution is not just in the UK. The German Economics Ministry, for example, is still holding to its 0.3% growth forecast for the whole of 2013, when their Q1 growth was 0% and Q2 0.7%. Similarly, the EU forecast for Eurozone growth in the second half of 2013 is still for 0.0% growth.
2. The high risks of external shock. BRICS growth is falling albeit from high levels; the Eurozone has only just emerged tentatively from a recession which has lasted from 2011; the outcome of Japan's Abenomics experiment remains uncertain; and, the US economy is having to absord backloaded tax increases and spending cuts due to Obama's delayed fiscal consolidation measures. The political situation in the Middle East won't be helping either.
In spite of the above, it does seem that early indicators from the first two months of Q3 are showing that the UK economy is continuing to grow and at an accelerated rate. Markit PMIs for all sectors have risen in both months and interim monthly ONS outcomes have also shown growth.
SWIFT, which bases its predictions of growth on aggregrated B2B transactions and whose forecasts have been very reliable since it started its index last year, is showing a 'nowcast' of 0.5% for UK 2013 Q3 and a 'forecast' of 0.4% for Q4.
If SWIFT are right then UK growth for the calendar year is likely to be around 2.0% which matches both your and my gut feel. I am confident it probably matches the same gut feel of external forecasters but then they are held up to ridicule in the event of their predictions being wrong!
It is not the role of legislature to scrutinise intelligence output nor should it be. The legislature must trust government ministers and party leaders in their representation of threats and risks to national security.
What has broken down is the trust in which government ministers are held and this failure is a direct consequence of the failure of Blair to represent intelligence findings and conclusions to the public and to Parliament.
In short, once Blair had 'lied' to parliament and the public, he made the task of every subsequent Prime Minister more difficult.
Similarly, the trust placed in the Leader of the Opposition to view intelligence output in his capactity as a Privy Councillor has also been breached. What future PM will accord a LOTO the same access to information and courtesy, now that this process has been perverted for domestic party political gain?
Cameron may have been incompetent in his handling of his party yesterday but at least he didn't traduce the nation and breach the trust of the Crown.
Tell me this, would they prefer the LIE of the intelligence report saying 110% the truth, copper bottomed, couldn't be wrong in a million years or a thoughtful 'We're pretty sure this is the case, can't be 100% certain - but all the evidence points to this conclusion'. Well to my mind the bar of 'proof' was being put way way too high by the doubting Ed. Get this - the 'proof' Mr Miliband is looking for wasn't going to happen, won't happen and never will happen in intelligence matters. UNLESS YOU MAKE STUFF UP, and lie about the strength of what you actually had. No the JIC couldn't be absolutely sure, to my mind intelligence proof probably is to a courtroom proof as the courtroom proof is to a scientific proof. At some point you needs to pay yer money and takes yer choice.
The no vote comprised largely Labour surrender monkeys, Labour politicking and frit Tory MPs worried about their seats.
the jutting jawed chinlessness
When will the Miliband Lefties ever make up their mind?
They are in favour of intervention but vote against it.
They accuse the PM both of lacking a chin and of possessing a jutting jaw.
How can they ever be believed? How can they ever be trusted?
285 v 272!
LOL!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05590dfc-1188-11e3-8321-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2dTzgA1tj
All this, however, needed full assessment. 3rd parties to the conflict had spotted activity in the days and hours leading up but apparently misinterpreted it in isolation, or just refused to acknowledge it.
The overall assessment of the picture of events was pretty much done and dusted 3 days ago. There hasn't been any sign of anything particularly new or dramatic since.
Sorry about technical problems
What it does show that is encouraging is that he's a very smart politician and much more courageous than any of us thought. Infact the only person on here who got him anywhere near right was Mike. He is indeed ruthless and astute.
Some in here may be thinking, who are they ?
"The man simply oozes incompetence."
Can you ooze incompetence? Isn't it almost an oxymoron?
I like it though!