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.
A massive self inflicted wound from Cameron, he can't win majorities,he couldn't get the boundary changes through and he can't deliver his own side on foreign policy. And the amateurish recall/whipping operation was simply stunning. Expect some focus on Theresa May's unflashy competence compared to Camerons penchant for talking big and acting small.
tim, please use a different record, I've read this stuff a million times. Stop distracting from the fact that Milliband didn't want to win the vote!
"Labour party uneasy despite sense of triumph after Syria debate" (FT) "But the triumphalism being expressed in many Labour quarters belies a deeper unease among some in the party that the short-term tactical victory may have damaged Labour’s long-term foreign policy. Several high-ranking MPs and aides said they believed Mr Miliband should have supported the prime minister instead."
Let's see what EdM might be forced to fend in the coming days. DC sounded relieved after the vote.
Labours appalling behaviour has told a madman to keep on killing ,Great Britain has given him Carte Blanche ' There is no other way to interpret this decision, even Assad thinks that is the the way it is..Happy chappy.. More popcorn.
You are right to point out that the BoE figures showing a small increase in consumer credit last month are not indicative of any major change in trend.
The BBA figures which came out during the last week, and which are more granular with regard to personal and household money flows, showed that personal deposits fell in July by £2,458 million, but over the first half of 2013 increased by a net £16,474 million. January saw a similar fall to July: all other months saw net increases. This is suggestive more of Christmas and Annual Holiday peaks than a change in long term trends. Especially as the same pattern of montly variance is shown in previous years.
On consumer credit, there is a change in trend hidden by the net figures. Consumers are reducing borrowing through personal bank loans and overdrafts at the same time as they are increasing borrowing on credit cards. Outstanding loans on credit cards have risen from £36,489 million to £38,496 million in the first half of 2013, an increase of 5.5%. The equivalent figures for personal loans and overdrafts are £42,707 to £41,687 a fall of 2.4%. The net increase in all personal borrowing is from £79,196 m to £80,182 m an increase of £986 m or 1.2%.
To give a comprehensive view we need to include mortgage lending changes. I have already posted the figures on mortgage lending so just a summary recap. Lending secured on dwellings (outstanding balance) has increased from £777,357 m in January to £779,944 m in July, an increase of 0.3%. Repayment of Capital over the same period (monthly repayments) has moved from £8,262 m in January to £9,087 m in July, an increase of 1.5%. New lending over the period has been £58,491 m compared with capital repayments of £60,366, a net repayment of £1,845.
tim is going to have to spin these figures into a tightly coiled pig's tail to find any evidence of either a consumer credit or mortgage lending boom.
SoS Kerry could be taken to task by calling the French the Americans' oldest ally. Before independence the colonists and the Brits were fighting the French and Indians. It was the cost of these wars which prompted the Brits to tax the colonists - it could have been said "no protection without taxation".
Can I just say that today it was a rare occasion - the supporters of the government's position on Syria (or more interventionist than that) were shouting louder on Twitter and Facebook.
SoS Kerry could be taken to task by calling the French the Americans' oldest ally. Before independence the colonists and the Brits were fighting the French and Indians. It was the cost of these wars which prompted the Brits to tax the colonists - it could have been said "no protection without taxation".
I think the relevant part of that paragraph are the words 'Before Independence'
Kerry is correct that France is indeed the US's oldest ally. Before independence the US didn't exist.
Brasenose College, Oxford vs. Politicalbetting.com
Your starter for 10.
Which leader of a UK political party leader stabbed his brother in the back; disowned his firstborn; betrayed the trust of the Queen; and traduced the foreign policy interests of the country in an futile attempt to secure a favourable headline in The Guardian newspaper?
Your three bonus questions are on the Borgia family.
Once upon a time , there was a Republican President in the USA and a Guallist President in France. The Americans poured [ cheap ] French in the drains and renamed French Fries as Freedom Fries.
Today, the USA has a Democrat as President and France has a Socialist as President. France is now the "oldest" friend of the USA.
Could be wrong, but I don't think things are as bad for Cameron as people suggest. The rebellion was small (30 blues, 9 yellows), it wasn't a confidence issue, and he leads a coalition (and therefore lacks an outright majority).
Not to say it's insignificant, but it may be that more people see this as a good moment for Parliament, and will draw a positive contrast between Cameron and Blair.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
In non-Syria related news, it looks like we'll eventually be getting to 'Austerity needed until 2020' even sooner than I had thought.
[BCC Chief Economist] Tax receipts are inadequate as a result of sharp falls in oil and gas reserves and cuts in current spending will be needed until 2019 at the earliest."
"Labour party uneasy despite sense of triumph after Syria debate" (FT) "But the triumphalism being expressed in many Labour quarters belies a deeper unease among some in the party that the short-term tactical victory may have damaged Labour’s long-term foreign policy. Several high-ranking MPs and aides said they believed Mr Miliband should have supported the prime minister instead."
Let's see what EdM might be forced to fend in the coming days. DC sounded relieved after the vote.
TJ..Who can blame the US, they need someone they can trust..Who will ever trust Milliband again..you can start with his family and work out from there.
100% view over the last few days has been "why's the government trying to get us into another war" - bafflement often followed by anger.
I can't recall ANYONE in the 'real world' ever saying anything about Syria.
I doubt anyone in my world is going to give a toss however many people are killed in Syria and who kills them - so all this talk of such and such a politician being held responsible for such and such Arab on Arab killing is vastly overestimating the political effect.
The only Arab countries people are interested in are those which have oil and/or those which have holiday resorts.
Justine Greening was in a room with a man and they could not hear the division bell. Even in pubs and restaurants around Westminster the bell can be heard.
Was the "Do Not Disturb" hanging on the door knob ?
David Cameron’s support for the Syrian uprising has been questioned after revelations that his top aide’s firm worked for the rebels.
The UK arm of strategist Lynton Crosby’s lobbying empire represented the Syrian National Council.
Mr Cameron stepped up his calls for action – including arming forces trying to oust bloody dictator Bashar al-Assad – after hiring the Australian as his elections adviser last year.
Even as Labour whips gathered to applaud their leader in the wake of Thursday’s historic vote he was worrying about its consequences.
After a brief speech of thanks for their work, he (Ed Miliband) slipped away to his Commons office to take stock of how he had emerged as the hero of the hour, and the danger that he could yet emerge a villain.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
The whole of Parliament, the country and the world is pointing at David Cameron and laughing.
Meanwhile Clegg remains as useless as ever.
And Miliband is clearly and obviously totally unfit to be a toilet attendant, never-mind Prime Minister.
Whatever did we do to deserve these people?
So you have joined my club ;-) still,camerons the best of the bad bunch I suppose,these words give me the shivers though - Primeminister Miliband ;-)
I guess.
I like Cameron in many ways, but despite the vast difficulty of the position and political coalition he found himself needing to handle, he has proven incapable of controlling his own party, last night merely being the most damaging consequence of it. But who would replace him that would do any better? No-one who would actually risk taking him down before 2015, and a probable election loss, I suspect, so not much point in speculating I would guess.
Clegg has been a politcal zombie for a while, so someone else getting into a better position to replace him is not very noteworthy even to him I suspect.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Cameron should've pulled the vote, or voted for Labours amendment, but it seems the Tories were so amateurish they didn't even run a whipping operation and didn't have a clue on the numbers.
"Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
Even as Labour whips gathered to applaud their leader in the wake of Thursday’s historic vote he was worrying about its consequences.
After a brief speech of thanks for their work, he (Ed Miliband) slipped away to his Commons office to take stock of how he had emerged as the hero of the hour, and the danger that he could yet emerge a villain.
"Labour party uneasy despite sense of triumph after Syria debate" (FT) "But the triumphalism being expressed in many Labour quarters belies a deeper unease among some in the party that the short-term tactical victory may have damaged Labour’s long-term foreign policy. Several high-ranking MPs and aides said they believed Mr Miliband should have supported the prime minister instead."
Let's see what EdM might be forced to fend in the coming days. DC sounded relieved after the vote.
Political betting was off line for at least the last 3 hours. What happened?
It must be a wake up call for those that thought back stabbing Milliband would not backstab again. It was obvious that before last night red Ed had agreed with Cammo on the main plans of attacking Assad. I don't think even as lazy a person as Cammo would have have recalled parliament without redEd's promise of support in his pocket.
However, once a back-stabber always a back-stabber, Eddy simply couldn't resist the chance to do a political enemy down. Never trust a marxist! They'll always have you up against the wall and shot.
It was a very good night, not simply for Farage, but for the whole of UKIP that put on a "stop the war campaign" at very short notice. Activists were in the places that counted - being seen by the media and the crowds of people around Parliament Square and Westminster generaly.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Total bullshit, Mike.
If the vote were held again, it would pass.
The errors made by Cameron were in party management and whipping.
The errors made by Miliband were in playing party politics at the expense of the nation's international interests.
The one party leader that came out of the fiasco relatively unscathed was Nick Clegg.
You forgot to mention re. Hague that he was so incompetent that he scarcely added to the Tory seat tally or Tory vote in 2001! (In fact, if Foetus had done better in 2001, Cameron wouldn't have had such a mountain to climb to get a majority in 2010 - at least Howard added 30-odd seats in 2005).
"Labour party uneasy despite sense of triumph after Syria debate" (FT) "But the triumphalism being expressed in many Labour quarters belies a deeper unease among some in the party that the short-term tactical victory may have damaged Labour’s long-term foreign policy. Several high-ranking MPs and aides said they believed Mr Miliband should have supported the prime minister instead."
Let's see what EdM might be forced to fend in the coming days. DC sounded relieved after the vote.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Rubbish. You (and tim) are trying to waltz on the head of a pin.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows 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 both ruthless and astute which are good qualities for a leader.
Given that what happened is what the overwhelming majority wanted - wars getting properly voted on beforehand - i think Cameron resigning over this would be a terrible idea.
Cutting through all the political blather on PB, Labour voted to let a lunatic loose on his people and told him we would not interfere..Well done
Richard, no matter how often you repeat this insane drivel it remains insane drivel.
I also note you never answer my question earlier today. Given that you are accusing those who opposed action of 'enjoying' the sight of civilians killed by Assad I wonder if you likewise will be 'enjoying' the sight of civilians killed by western bombing? Or are you insane enough to believe that the righteous western bombs only kill bad people?
I like Cameron in many ways, but despite the vast difficulty of the position and political coalition he found himself needing to handle, he has proven incapable of controlling his own party, last night merely being the most damaging consequence of it. But who would replace him that would do any better? No-one who would actually risk taking him down before 2015, and a probable election loss, I suspect, so not much point in speculating I would guess.
Clegg has been a politcal zombie for a while, so someone else getting into a better position to replace him is not very noteworthy even to him I suspect.
Ed M? He's good at politics I guess, but I have to admit that while I did not support intervention now because the liklihood of a positive outcome morally or practically seemed pretty slim, some of the crowing from fellow non-interventionists I did find a bit disconcerting.
I do find the 'not our business' argument an odd one, given nothing that happens to another nation is the business of another (or so its rulers would no doubt argue), and everything that happens in the world impacts everyone else (to differing degrees, of course), so not only are things definitely our business (and everyone elses), nations have and always will involve themselves for their own national interests whenever they wish to and are able to, and the impression you sometimes get from non-interventionists is that we are someone unique in that, which is just bizarre.
I didn't want direct action, and this nation is no saint in international affairs, but I do find the occasional painting of our normal self interested acting internationally as somehow not being totally normal.
It's the same with the whole global policeman sort of thing. Yeah, I'm not in favour of that either, but there's always so much condemnation for not acting as well, and countries which would no doubt say former global powers should butt out of their affairs change their tune on that when its convenient. Take this quote from the CAR coup
The crowd accused France of abandoning them by refusing to help quash the rebellion.
Apparently ex-colonial powers should be global policeman for former colonies sometimes.
I suspect that one or two key Shadow Cabinet Ministers are very uncomfortable with the ease with which Ed Miliband caved in to his own party. His personal polling is in the toilet, he is regarded as weak inside and outside his party, and nothing has changed over the last few days other than to see word untrustworthy added to the the list of his failings. I suspect that Miliband thought he could do a Farage here, appeal to the popular vote by voting against the Government while expecting Cameron to carry the day and deliver the necessary vote anyway. Miliband isn't even fit to be the Leader of the Opposition, and his word means nothing, along with his ever changing Foreign policy position.
Alex Massie in the Spectator Blogs - On Syria, parliament has voted to have no policy at all. "But at least we know what David Cameron believes. The same cannot be said about Ed Miliband. The best one can say for the Labour leader is that he is hopelessly confused. Perhaps he lost control of his party too. Alternatively, his approach reeked of low cynicism. Indeed, Miliband’s approach reminded me of the kind of stuff you see in student unions across the country. Juvenile and petty; point-scoring and obstructive simply for the fun of it. That doesn’t matter much at the university level; the stakes were rather higher yesterday.
It takes some gall to extract major concessions from the government that results in a motion substantively in line with your own expressed preferences and then to vote against that motion anyway. That, however, is what Miliband appears to have done."
"Labour party uneasy despite sense of triumph after Syria debate" (FT) "But the triumphalism being expressed in many Labour quarters belies a deeper unease among some in the party that the short-term tactical victory may have damaged Labour’s long-term foreign policy. Several high-ranking MPs and aides said they believed Mr Miliband should have supported the prime minister instead."
Let's see what EdM might be forced to fend in the coming days. DC sounded relieved after the vote.
Mr. D, unsurprised, but it's still a shocking thing to write.
In unrelated news, I saw Sky News chat to some Americans about Assad. One chap referenced standing up to Hitler... did make me want to point out to him that the Americans turned up rather late to that one...
How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows 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 both ruthless and astute which are good qualities for a leader.
You mean Miliband is a back-stabber, who puts himself ahead of the country?
Maybe being ruthless will get him to be leader (for a while, like Brown), but they are are not "good qualities" that many people would look for in a leader.
How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows 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 both ruthless and astute which are good qualities for a leader.
You mean Miliband is a back-stabber, who puts himself ahead of the country?
Maybe being ruthless will get him to be leader (for a while, like Brown), but they are are not "good qualities" that many people would look for in a leader.
Cameron taking the trust of miliband,the man who stabbed his own brother in the back ;-)
'How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows he's a very smart politician and much more courageous than any of us thought'
Yes,real courage.
'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.
Indeed, Dr. Prasannan. We've got a tyrant against fundamentalist heart-eating priest-beheaders.
I feel tremendous sympathy for the people of Syria, and the secular opposition that was forced into war and then (seemingly) overtaken by terrorist psychos.
@SkyNewsBreak: Turkish PM: any international military intervention against Syria should aim to bring an end to rule of President Bashar al-Assad
Obviously that's true, which is why Cameron humiliating himself over lobbing a few missiles is so strange
There's nothing strange about it. Our glorious leaders want regime change just like Iraq but know they can't win public support on that basis so they are trying to bounce people into it instead.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Rubbish. You (and tim) are trying to waltz on the head of a pin.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
I've been offline for a while, so one thing I'm a little confused about may make more sense than it appears to me - I'm sure I saw a quote from Ed M talking about doing the right thing in standing up and taking military action off the table, but I thought Labour's position via their amendment was to keep military action on the table but just make it much harder?
Wouldn't that mean that what happened wasn't actually what Labour thought the right thing was, as any action of any significance (only force will produce any outcome, good or ill now, for me it's a question of whether we got involved or not and made it better/worse, as not doing anything direct will achieve nothing either) is now not available now matter what now happens in Syria?
Maybe I'm just being a bit dumb, and Ed M certainly proved himself a canny operator once again, but I don't quite get how the defence of the actions from Labour seems to be that this is what they always wanted, to take military action off the table, when they had proposed an option which kept it on? Have I just not seen enough punditry about this to clarify?
How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows 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 both ruthless and astute which are good qualities for a leader.
A Prime Minister needs to be a national leader and a statesman, not just a mere politician.
Miliband may be tactically astute, but he did it by breaking his word to the Prime Minister on a matter of national importance. In doing so, he diminished Britain's reputation in the world and signalled tacit approval to the regime in Syria to carry on doing what they like.
The man is contemptible. I used to just think he would be a poor PM but was a decent enough guy for a scheming politician. No longer.
Given that what happened is what the overwhelming majority wanted - wars getting properly voted on beforehand - i think Cameron resigning over this would be a terrible idea.
Hague on the other hand.
Public opinion is very fickle and may be very different in a few weeks time depending on what may happen . Chamberlain was hailed as a hero when he returned from Munich waving a piece of paper . Making ( especially foreign ) policy based on what the majority of the public want can be fraught with danger .
How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows 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 both ruthless and astute which are good qualities for a leader.
For heaven's sake, Roger, Ed has enough problems without you predicting his imminent beatification.
He won a skirmish, that's all. In so doing he boxed himself into a corner. Once the biffing starts there will be two clear sides. Which side will Ed be one? The one he's just undermined for political advantage or the one that murders its own citizens? Some choice.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Rubbish. You (and tim) are trying to waltz on the head of a pin.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
Is that what you want?
Polling being clear is not necessarily an indication of what the vote in the Commons would be like. If politicians only did what the polls said we'd like, nothing would ever get done.
Of course, there were other signs that a vote would at best always be very tight, but to suggest that because the polls indicated people were against it the whole venture would naturally be a disaster seems silly.
Firstly, where does the Gove for Leader meme come from? I'm pretty sure I've read him as saying on a few occasions that he has absolutely no interest in the leadership, basically because he understands that he doesn't have the minerals for it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I'd say winning back ones authority is easier than winning back ones virginity. I think!?
Indeed, Dr. Prasannan. We've got a tyrant against fundamentalist heart-eating priest-beheaders.
I feel tremendous sympathy for the people of Syria, and the secular opposition that was forced into war and then (seemingly) overtaken by terrorist psychos.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Mao kill more?
Mao did kill more, but a majority of those were through bad agricultural policies rather than plans to murder your opponents.
I squarely blame Cameron for reawakening my long-dormant lefty peacenik urges! (context - I attended two of 2003's big anti-war rallies in Hyde Park, plus the "Bush sucks" rally in Trafalgar Square later that year).
Indeed, Mr. Fenster. Basil II got a thrashing in his first battle, and wept in church afterwards. He then spent the rest of his pretty long reign kicking the crap out of just about every enemy of Byzantium.
Comments
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.
These should be fixed now.
Apologies if you've lost any posts during the downtime
Victory for Assad.
Death for a lot more Syrians.
Well done Ed.
Meanwhile Clegg remains as useless as ever.
And Miliband is clearly and obviously totally unfit to be a toilet attendant, never-mind Prime Minister.
Whatever did we do to deserve these people?
"But the triumphalism being expressed in many Labour quarters belies a deeper unease among some in the party that the short-term tactical victory may have damaged Labour’s long-term foreign policy. Several high-ranking MPs and aides said they believed Mr Miliband should have supported the prime minister instead."
Let's see what EdM might be forced to fend in the coming days. DC sounded relieved after the vote.
There is no other way to interpret this decision, even Assad thinks that is the the way it is..Happy chappy..
More popcorn.
July consumer credit figures
You are right to point out that the BoE figures showing a small increase in consumer credit last month are not indicative of any major change in trend.
The BBA figures which came out during the last week, and which are more granular with regard to personal and household money flows, showed that personal deposits fell in July by £2,458 million, but over the first half of 2013 increased by a net £16,474 million. January saw a similar fall to July: all other months saw net increases. This is suggestive more of Christmas and Annual Holiday peaks than a change in long term trends. Especially as the same pattern of montly variance is shown in previous years.
On consumer credit, there is a change in trend hidden by the net figures. Consumers are reducing borrowing through personal bank loans and overdrafts at the same time as they are increasing borrowing on credit cards. Outstanding loans on credit cards have risen from £36,489 million to £38,496 million in the first half of 2013, an increase of 5.5%. The equivalent figures for personal loans and overdrafts are £42,707 to £41,687 a fall of 2.4%. The net increase in all personal borrowing is from £79,196 m to £80,182 m an increase of £986 m or 1.2%.
To give a comprehensive view we need to include mortgage lending changes. I have already posted the figures on mortgage lending so just a summary recap. Lending secured on dwellings (outstanding balance) has increased from £777,357 m in January to £779,944 m in July, an increase of 0.3%. Repayment of Capital over the same period (monthly repayments) has moved from £8,262 m in January to £9,087 m in July, an increase of 1.5%. New lending over the period has been £58,491 m compared with capital repayments of £60,366, a net repayment of £1,845.
tim is going to have to spin these figures into a tightly coiled pig's tail to find any evidence of either a consumer credit or mortgage lending boom.
For me the winners last night were Niger Farage and Tim Farron who is now even better placed to take over from Clegg.
The LDs problem was Ashdown who put his party in a very difficult position.
In their hysteria they seem to have forgotten the opinions of the Great British public.
But toffs never gave a f*** about the plebs anyway.
No change there !
It will be interesting and entertaining to see him come unstuck - They do say what goes around come's around, etc...
Kerry is correct that France is indeed the US's oldest ally. Before independence the US didn't exist.
Brasenose College, Oxford vs. Politicalbetting.com
Your starter for 10.
Which leader of a UK political party leader stabbed his brother in the back; disowned his firstborn; betrayed the trust of the Queen; and traduced the foreign policy interests of the country in an futile attempt to secure a favourable headline in The Guardian newspaper?
Your three bonus questions are on the Borgia family.
Today, the USA has a Democrat as President and France has a Socialist as President.
France is now the "oldest" friend of the USA.
Could be wrong, but I don't think things are as bad for Cameron as people suggest. The rebellion was small (30 blues, 9 yellows), it wasn't a confidence issue, and he leads a coalition (and therefore lacks an outright majority).
Not to say it's insignificant, but it may be that more people see this as a good moment for Parliament, and will draw a positive contrast between Cameron and Blair.
[BCC Chief Economist] Tax receipts are inadequate as a result of sharp falls in oil and gas reserves and cuts in current spending will be needed until 2019 at the earliest."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23893789
100% view over the last few days has been "why's the government trying to get us into another war" - bafflement often followed by anger.
I can't recall ANYONE in the 'real world' ever saying anything about Syria.
I doubt anyone in my world is going to give a toss however many people are killed in Syria and who kills them - so all this talk of such and such a politician being held responsible for such and such Arab on Arab killing is vastly overestimating the political effect.
The only Arab countries people are interested in are those which have oil and/or those which have holiday resorts.
Syria has neither.
Was the "Do Not Disturb" hanging on the door knob ?
David Cameron’s support for the Syrian uprising has been questioned after revelations that his top aide’s firm worked for the rebels.
The UK arm of strategist Lynton Crosby’s lobbying empire represented the Syrian National Council.
Mr Cameron stepped up his calls for action – including arming forces trying to oust bloody dictator Bashar al-Assad – after hiring the Australian as his elections adviser last year.
Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-support-syria-uprising-2056411#ixzz2dU8ogsC7
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Even as Labour whips gathered to applaud their leader in the wake of Thursday’s historic vote he was worrying about its consequences.
After a brief speech of thanks for their work, he (Ed Miliband) slipped away to his Commons office to take stock of how he had emerged as the hero of the hour, and the danger that he could yet emerge a villain.
I like Cameron in many ways, but despite the vast difficulty of the position and political coalition he found himself needing to handle, he has proven incapable of controlling his own party, last night merely being the most damaging consequence of it. But who would replace him that would do any better? No-one who would actually risk taking him down before 2015, and a probable election loss, I suspect, so not much point in speculating I would guess.
Clegg has been a politcal zombie for a while, so someone else getting into a better position to replace him is not very noteworthy even to him I suspect.
Ed M? He's good at politics I guess.
"The LDs problem was Ashdown who put his party in a very difficult position"
Ashdown might have been a great man if he'd been born 200 years earlier.
Nowadays he merely appears overwrought.
"Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233350/miliband-was-governed-by-narrow-political-interests-not-the-national-interests-or-those-of-syrian-children/
By not condemning the bombing maybe.
Nowadays he merely appears overweight.
It must be a wake up call for those that thought back stabbing Milliband would not backstab again. It was obvious that before last night red Ed had agreed with Cammo on the main plans of attacking Assad. I don't think even as lazy a person as Cammo would have have recalled parliament without redEd's promise of support in his pocket.
However, once a back-stabber always a back-stabber, Eddy simply couldn't resist the chance to do a political enemy down. Never trust a marxist! They'll always have you up against the wall and shot.
It was a very good night, not simply for Farage, but for the whole of UKIP that put on a "stop the war campaign" at very short notice. Activists were in the places that counted - being seen by the media and the crowds of people around Parliament Square and Westminster generaly.
how sad am I?!
If the vote were held again, it would pass.
The errors made by Cameron were in party management and whipping.
The errors made by Miliband were in playing party politics at the expense of the nation's international interests.
The one party leader that came out of the fiasco relatively unscathed was Nick Clegg.
Forget policies and all other political considerations - he is not remotely credible as a leader of a main political Party.
I think the LDs would do far, far worse with him than with Clegg.
I'm sure people on here won't agree but the problem is that people on here think about the politics. Forget the politics.
"The man simply oozes incompetence."
Can you ooze incompetence? Isn't it almost an oxymoron?
I like it though!
You forgot to mention re. Hague that he was so incompetent that he scarcely added to the Tory seat tally or Tory vote in 2001! (In fact, if Foetus had done better in 2001, Cameron wouldn't have had such a mountain to climb to get a majority in 2010 - at least Howard added 30-odd seats in 2005).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10260698/David-Cameron-goes-topless-on-Polzeath-beach-in-Cornwall.html
You're almost certainly correct (for once).
'In their hysteria they seem to have forgotten the opinions of the Great British public.
But toffs never gave a f*** about the plebs anyway.'
Just like New Labour took public opinion into account before invading Iraq.
.
.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
Is that what you want?
What is encouraging is that it shows 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 both ruthless and astute which are good qualities for a leader.
Out of interest, what would you actually do regarding Syria ?
Please state what your goal would be and how you would attempt to achieve it.
Hague on the other hand.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
I also note you never answer my question earlier today. Given that you are accusing those who opposed action of 'enjoying' the sight of civilians killed by Assad I wonder if you likewise will be 'enjoying' the sight of civilians killed by western bombing? Or are you insane enough to believe that the righteous western bombs only kill bad people?
Conservative - farage
Labour - salmond
Lib dem - farron
How great would that be ;-)
Clegg has been a politcal zombie for a while, so someone else getting into a better position to replace him is not very noteworthy even to him I suspect.
Ed M? He's good at politics I guess, but I have to admit that while I did not support intervention now because the liklihood of a positive outcome morally or practically seemed pretty slim, some of the crowing from fellow non-interventionists I did find a bit disconcerting.
I do find the 'not our business' argument an odd one, given nothing that happens to another nation is the business of another (or so its rulers would no doubt argue), and everything that happens in the world impacts everyone else (to differing degrees, of course), so not only are things definitely our business (and everyone elses), nations have and always will involve themselves for their own national interests whenever they wish to and are able to, and the impression you sometimes get from non-interventionists is that we are someone unique in that, which is just bizarre.
I didn't want direct action, and this nation is no saint in international affairs, but I do find the occasional painting of our normal self interested acting internationally as somehow not being totally normal.
It's the same with the whole global policeman sort of thing. Yeah, I'm not in favour of that either, but there's always so much condemnation for not acting as well, and countries which would no doubt say former global powers should butt out of their affairs change their tune on that when its convenient. Take this quote from the CAR coup
The crowd accused France of abandoning them by refusing to help quash the rebellion.
Apparently ex-colonial powers should be global policeman for former colonies sometimes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20845887
Alex Massie in the Spectator Blogs - On Syria, parliament has voted to have no policy at all.
"But at least we know what David Cameron believes. The same cannot be said about Ed Miliband. The best one can say for the Labour leader is that he is hopelessly confused. Perhaps he lost control of his party too. Alternatively, his approach reeked of low cynicism. Indeed, Miliband’s approach reminded me of the kind of stuff you see in student unions across the country. Juvenile and petty; point-scoring and obstructive simply for the fun of it. That doesn’t matter much at the university level; the stakes were rather higher yesterday.
It takes some gall to extract major concessions from the government that results in a motion substantively in line with your own expressed preferences and then to vote against that motion anyway. That, however, is what Miliband appears to have done."
In unrelated news, I saw Sky News chat to some Americans about Assad. One chap referenced standing up to Hitler... did make me want to point out to him that the Americans turned up rather late to that one...
Maybe being ruthless will get him to be leader (for a while, like Brown), but they are are not "good qualities" that many people would look for in a leader.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
Tory - Farage
Labour - Galloway
Liberal - Boris Johnson
"The LDs problem was Ashdown who put his party in a very difficult position."
Spot on! I thought he was embarrassing (as I'm sure he will when he hears this morning's performance played back to him)
And Cameron wanted to give the Syrian rebels arms, some of which would have ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda.
Its Cameron's behaviour that has no logical basis.
To not occur 1/6
To occur 7/2
'How Ed comes out of this is largely irrelevant though most things I've heard so far are positive.
What is encouraging is that it shows he's a very smart politician and much more courageous than any of us thought'
Yes,real courage.
'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.
I feel tremendous sympathy for the people of Syria, and the secular opposition that was forced into war and then (seemingly) overtaken by terrorist psychos.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Mao kill more?
Go look at the polling earier in the week on this. It was blindigly obvious then, as I Tweeted, that this was going to be doomed.
The person who has read this right has been Farage.
Wouldn't that mean that what happened wasn't actually what Labour thought the right thing was, as any action of any significance (only force will produce any outcome, good or ill now, for me it's a question of whether we got involved or not and made it better/worse, as not doing anything direct will achieve nothing either) is now not available now matter what now happens in Syria?
Maybe I'm just being a bit dumb, and Ed M certainly proved himself a canny operator once again, but I don't quite get how the defence of the actions from Labour seems to be that this is what they always wanted, to take military action off the table, when they had proposed an option which kept it on? Have I just not seen enough punditry about this to clarify?
Miliband may be tactically astute, but he did it by breaking his word to the Prime Minister on a matter of national importance. In doing so, he diminished Britain's reputation in the world and signalled tacit approval to the regime in Syria to carry on doing what they like.
The man is contemptible. I used to just think he would be a poor PM but was a decent enough guy for a scheming politician. No longer.
He won a skirmish, that's all. In so doing he boxed himself into a corner. Once the biffing starts there will be two clear sides. Which side will Ed be one? The one he's just undermined for political advantage or the one that murders its own citizens? Some choice.
Of course, there were other signs that a vote would at best always be very tight, but to suggest that because the polls indicated people were against it the whole venture would naturally be a disaster seems silly.
Firstly, where does the Gove for Leader meme come from? I'm pretty sure I've read him as saying on a few occasions that he has absolutely no interest in the leadership, basically because he understands that he doesn't have the minerals for it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I'd say winning back ones authority is easier than winning back ones virginity. I think!?
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
I squarely blame Cameron for reawakening my long-dormant lefty peacenik urges! (context - I attended two of 2003's big anti-war rallies in Hyde Park, plus the "Bush sucks" rally in Trafalgar Square later that year).