"But Ed Miliband needs to pray that the Syrian government doesn’t commit any more atrocities. Because David Cameron is going to lay them all at his door from now on."
A ridiculous point since cruise missiles are hardly renowned for their healing powers or their ability to gather evidence on and capture war criminals.
Nonetheless, if that's the 'logic' from those intent on military strikes then they had also better pray that the Rebels and Al-Qaeda factions aligned to them don't also commit any more atrocities. Which is somewhat unlikely since both they and Assad have done so long before this and will continue to do so the more desperate and intractable an escalated civil war gets.
What would you do, Mick?
I liked DavidL's suggestion of individual responsibility, no idea if it is workable.
Yea, I don't think he really gives a damn about playing the internal party game anymore, given even if Cameron wanted to keep him around, the way the new intake have shifted to the right and the need to promote people to get them on board meant Clarke was due for a downgrade. He can pretty much do as he likes. He was invited to the NSC meeting though IIRC
So what do we think the polling implications of the last few days will be?
First up will be Sunday's YouGov - how will Dave and Miliband's relative ratings have shifted, if at all.
VI tends to be a little lagged...so how about mid next week, and then say in a fortnight's time?
Then we'll have MORI's Leader Ratings. tim predicts Cameron's to fall but he's frit on Ed's.
I'll start. My guess is a modest increase in Labour's lead short term (7-8%) but falling back to the 5-6% by mid September. But I reckon Dave's ratings will hold pretty steady but Miliband's will fall slightly.
On its own I think it will boost the certainty to vote of a chunk of Labour vote creating a polling blip for those that measure that.
By the way, I'm flying to Kenya tomorrow. Has anyone experienced Nairobi airport post-fire? I've heard it's a bit slow but people are improvising cheerfully.
1) What the goal of military intervention would be. 2) How it would be achieved. 3) What the consequences would be.
But its so much to easier to announce that he wants to 'punish' WMD users (provided that is they're people Eagles disapproves of) and to make ridiculous analogies with Saddam.
Eagles, you're wasting your abilities writing thread headers for Mike, a position at Cameron's high table is surely yours for the asking.
"...maybe the optimal time to strike against a weakened Cameron"
I think the aftermath of the 2014 EU and local elections will be the most likely time. For Messrs Cameron _and_ Clegg.
Agreed. Enough time for as clean a break as either party can hope for ahead of 2015, close enough to 2015 to justify not heading to the polls early once the leaders are ditched and stick with an amicable/less than amicable divorce until then.
I'm up for the French resuming control -- solves that problem nicely.
I personally think Syria ought to be eligible for Commonwealth membership due to the UK briefly being in charge during both WW1 and WW2. But that's just me
Given UK rule is not a requirement for membership as with Mozambique and Rwanda (exceptional cases or not), it appears so long as there is will within the members to admit someone, that is all the eligibility they need, and some stuff with the Queen being the head of the Commonwealth et al.
Ah, according to my research, during WW1 British troops did briefly enter Mozambique in pursuit of the German East Africa force under Lettow-Vorbeck. But I am not sure that they entered Rwanda - Belgians quickly entered it from Congo. However, and you'll like this, Rwanda recently adopted English as an official language!
1) What the goal of military intervention would be. 2) How it would be achieved. 3) What the consequences would be.
But its so much to easier to announce that he wants to 'punish' WMD users (provided that is they're people Eagles disapproves of) and to make ridiculous analogies with Saddam.
Eagles, you're wasting your abilities writing thread headers for Mike, a position at Cameron's high table is surely yours for the asking.
I'm still writing my response to you.
No place for me at Dave's high table, I upset him with some of my threads according to The Sunday Times.
I'm up for the French resuming control -- solves that problem nicely.
I personally think Syria ought to be eligible for Commonwealth membership due to the UK briefly being in charge during both WW1 and WW2. But that's just me
Given UK rule is not a requirement for membership as with Mozambique and Rwanda (exceptional cases or not), it appears so long as there is will within the members to admit someone, that is all the eligibility they need, and some stuff with the Queen being the head of the Commonwealth et al.
Ah, according to my research, during WW1 British troops did briefly enter Mozambique in pursuit of the German East Africa force under Lettow-Vorbeck. But I am not sure that they entered Rwanda - Belgians quickly entered it from Congo. However, and you'll like this, Rwanda recently adopted English as an official language!
Yes, to better to communicate with their neighbours or something wasn't it? I'm sure I read they were taking up cricket too! Good for them
ETA: Well blow me down - I read the thing about Cricket last year I think, not sure where, but a quick search reveals a programme including that very topic less than a week ago
Reading that story in the telegraph.. what were the whips thinking giving permission for so many people being away? Utterly shambolic.
Can't think what can have gone wrong with Sir George Young, Old Etonian Baronet, David Cameron, Old Etonian, George Osborne, Baronet and Ollie Letwin, Old Etonian on the case, can you?
I'm utterly shocked. How did Letwin get his job without a Baronetcy. Hah!
I wonder who would actually make a good whip for the tory benches, I'm not well versed with the hard-hitters on the backbenchers (presuming their are any).
By the way, I'm flying to Kenya tomorrow. Has anyone experienced Nairobi airport post-fire? I've heard it's a bit slow but people are improvising cheerfully.
No idea. But a Kenya flight is an excellent excuse to read "West with Night"!
It is impossible to disguise the fact that Miliband has been found out playing stupid sixth-form debating games in a matter of the gravest importance. Bear in mind that he was briefed on the intelligence well before the debate. He has achieved what I would have thought was the utterly impossible task of making François Hollande look like a mature, experienced world statesman.
How far back do you have to go to find a leader of either of the two main parties who was so puerile, naive and shifty? I've been following politics for nearly fifty years and I can't think of any leader who would have behaved as irresponsibly as he did. Even Brown looks like a towering statesman in comparison.
If he had an ounce of integrity he would resign tonight. He won't, of course.
re polling, Labour will surely get a boost. The biggest hook the Tories have managed to lay on Ed M is that he's weak, and now that idea has been dramatically destroyed (whether it proves a good or bad bit of political manuevering in the end) while Cameron looks adrift, so Labour must benefit from that.
If one was voting Tory, and was opposed to intervention, then the fact that intervention is not happening will be, in my opinion, enough to stay there for most people. Similarly there will be a small number of Labour voters who wanted intervention and blame Milliband, albeit that most will blame Cameron.
1) What the goal of military intervention would be. 2) How it would be achieved. 3) What the consequences would be.
1) The degradation of the Syrian Chemical/WMD programme and delivery systems and the trial of those who authorised and deployed those WMDs and warning to the Syrian Rebels and other world leaders that use of Chemical weapons will no longer be tolerated
2) Military strikes against the Syrian government and military complex, and yes that means targeting Assad
3) Some bad things will undoubtedly happen, but that is better than letting world leaders thinking they can use chemical weapons without consequences.
Ed "I don't give a f*ck about spasming Syrian kids dying in their 1000s" Miliband
Is that really what he wants? Cause that is what he now looks like. And I speak as someone who is against intervention.
The blowback for this could be terrible for Labour. It is so easy to make Miliband look bad.
I agree. 400 kids killed in this one gas attack. What happens if there is another 400? Of course it could have been a rouge commander but surely Assad has the ultimate responsibility for his army.
So far the "intervention" proposed by Obama amounts to lobbing around 200 cruise missiles into Syria at military targets of reasonable probability and then declaring "take that Assad, for daring to use chemical weapons". In reality that kind of intervention really only hurts the civilians in Syria because you can be sure that Assad will have civilians posted at all of his high profile military encampments and targets. Whether or not using civilians as cannon fodder and for purposes of propaganda is correct is not relevant to the debate, that Assad is certain to do it is relevant and we must take this into consideration.
Next, let's put the civilian casualties aside and assume for a minute that this intervention is successful. Who exactly are we handing the country over to? Hardline Islamists, terrorist affiliates, Al-Qaeda affiliates and hardline Islamist mercenaries from across the Middle East. Is that what we really what we want to do as the west? Hand over a country with stockpiles of chemical weapons to this group of people, I don't think so.
So what's the logical conclusion? 250,000 boots on the ground from a western peacekeeping force to oversee a transition to a "democratic" government much like Afghanistan and Iraq.
That last point is why 30 Tories voted the plan down, and why Cameron was idiotic to even consider an intervention that would inevitably mean British troops being sent to a hostile country where neither side is particularly friendly for basically no gain.
Now, Obama may want Russian influence out of the Middle East and sees a proxy war with them in Syria as a method to get them out, but that's not something Britain needs to get involved with. Not in the slightest.
So not so much isolationism as not wanting to blindly follow the US into each and every conflict.
If someone can make a case for intervention beyond "dying children" or "international treaties which we already let Israel violate" then I'm all ears, but right now it is not in our interest to intervene in Syria and that might sound bad, but it is the cold hard truth that Parliament was unable to escape last night and one that Cameron should have seen coming before recalling Parliament. Real sixth form amateur hour politics from Cameron over the last couple of days.
Anyway, balls to it. I'm off back to the Algarve tomorrow to a beautiful, nine-bedroomed villa just outside Vilamoura. My wife's family are going, including her aunt and cousin, who are both chefs.
No phone, no internet, no newspapers.
Just me, the wife and children and her extended family. Evenings adorned with garlic-infused lamb, gallons of Sagres, early hours gin sessions and heart disease. Awesome.
David Reed was elected as Labour MP for Sedgefield in 1970 at the age of 25. I think he was the second youngest MP elected in that election after Bernadette Devlin in Mid Ulster.
The Sedgefield constituency was abolished in February 1974 and Reed hasn’t returned to the Commons since.
It is impossible to disguise the fact that Miliband has been found out playing stupid sixth-form debating games in a matter of the gravest importance. Bear in mind that he was briefed on the intelligence well before the debate. He has achieved what I would have thought was the utterly impossible task of making François Hollande look like a mature, experienced world statesman.
How far back do you have to go to find a leader of either of the two main parties who was so puerile, naive and shifty? I've been following politics for nearly fifty years and I can't think of any leader who would have behaved as irresponsibly as he did. Even Brown looks like a towering statesman in comparison.
If he had an ounce of integrity he would resign tonight. He won't, of course.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Of course he can't. And that is the great flaw in the argument by all those pushing for military action. They have no concept of how that can be done, what the targets would be and what the end game is. They talk about 'punishment' but would run a mile from the only really effective way to fight a war which is with boots on the ground.
This is why I oppose military action even if it were proved that Assad ordered the attacks. It is pointless, ill considered and will only hurt those who we are supposed to be protecting - the Syrian civilian population.
By the way, I'm flying to Kenya tomorrow. Has anyone experienced Nairobi airport post-fire? I've heard it's a bit slow but people are improvising cheerfully.
No idea. But a Kenya flight is an excellent excuse to read "West with Night"!
Ed "I don't give a f*ck about spasming Syrian kids dying in their 1000s" Miliband
Is that really what he wants? Cause that is what he now looks like. And I speak as someone who is against intervention.
The blowback for this could be terrible for Labour. It is so easy to make Miliband look bad.
I think there's potential for it, but most people are so against getting involved under any circumstances, I think it will prove easier for the majority to not think about that and he will avoid such blowback, and I say that as someone against intervention as well. It's a horribly complex situaion with no clear moral path; the public don't want to strain themselves thinking about it - I sure do not, but I have fewer things to distract me from the news, like friends or family - so doing the thing that keeps us out should keep his reputation safe from blowback.
I find some of their stuff weak, but once again I think the DailyMash hit a very good point
Research by the Institute for Studies found that 89% of UK residents were ‘strongly opposed to dwelling on’ military intervention in Syria.
Mother-of-two Emma Bradford said: “I don’t want my mind to be used for thinking about the complex and frightening implications of warfare.
Rowenna putting an interesting gloss on the Commons vote in the Sky News papers review.
Her line is that the whole of the Labour party have been stunned by Cameron ruling out military intervention completely and without qualification after the vote was announced.
Her line is that Miliband was never, and is still not, opposed to military action but was only demanding a more cautious and less rushed approach to making the decision.
She claims Miliband would support a second vote on the issue, if, or when, his initial concerns were satisfied.
Now I know that Rowenna is not yet at the very top of the Labour party, but surely she was briefed by the Labour press office before appearing tonight on Sky News.
It does look as if Miliband is getting worried about the fallout from the UK's abject surrender landing on his shoulders. SeanT as always reading the tea-leaves early.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Targetting the Syrian regime and military/intelligence infrastructure, until Assad surrenders to face criminal charges
Only someone with absolutely no military knowledge could post something so naive. I assume you are also advocating bombing Tripoli and Beirut in Lebanon since much of the pro-Syrian Government command and control structure is scattered through the suburbs of those cities.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Targetting the Syrian regime and military/intelligence infrastructure, until Assad surrenders to face criminal charges
Only someone with absolutely no military knowledge could post something so naive. I assume you are also advocating bombing Tripoli and Beirut in Lebanon since much of the pro-Syrian Government command and control structure is scattered through the suburbs of those cities.
I'm going off on what I read by the Defence Editor of the Times and a former Chief of the Defence Staff wrote and yes, bombing Lebanon is an option
That's normal though isn't it? Pro-EU politicos. The politicos recommend joining the Euro too, but the Danes rejected it in a referendum.
Nick I am surprised at your misreading of this. There is still a clear majority against abandoning the opt outs although that is now narrowing. Most commentators in Denmark see the Opposition pushing for the referendum as soon as possible as them wanting it to be lost and fearing that if the vote is delayed the pro-EU vote will only get stronger.
Rowenna putting an interesting gloss on the Commons vote in the Sky News papers review.
Her line is that the whole of the Labour party have been stunned by Cameron ruling out military intervention completely and without qualification after the vote was announced.
Her line is that Miliband was never, and is still not, opposed to military action but was only demanding a more cautious and less rushed approach to making the decision.
She claims Miliband would support a second vote on the issue, if, or when, his initial concerns were satisfied.
Now I know that Rowenna is not yet at the very top of the Labour party, but surely she was briefed by the Labour press office before appearing tonight on Sky News.
It does look as if Miliband is getting worried about being the scapegoat on this issue. SeanT as always reading the tea-leaves early.
Funny that, I got the feeling this morning on the way to work and listening to the radio that an awful lot of MPs after leaving the Commons for the daylight of reality were asking themselves, 'just what have we done?' Can't really say why, just a gut reaction. Listen to Kerry's speech (the guy sounded like he was the President whether you agree with what he says or not) and it kinda put a lot of the Westminster echo chamber games in perspective.
I realise you're embarrassed by Camerons incompetence, but if he thought he was being doublecrossed or outboundered or whatever he calls it he should've just pulled the vote and said "we can't judge this sensibly until we have the US and UN intelligence reports"
but he didn't, and you know why? Because his own side hadn't got a clue how their own MPs would vote, or even where they were in some cases.
Get the frigging huge beam out of your Leader's eye before presuming to lecture us about the speck of dust in ours.
1) What the goal of military intervention would be. 2) How it would be achieved. 3) What the consequences would be.
1) The degradation of the Syrian Chemical/WMD programme and delivery systems and the trial of those who authorised and deployed those WMDs and warning to the Syrian Rebels and other world leaders that use of Chemical weapons will no longer be tolerated
2) Military strikes against the Syrian government and military complex, and yes that means targeting Assad
3) Some bad things will undoubtedly happen, but that is better than letting world leaders thinking they can use chemical weapons without consequences.
As there's evidence that both sides have dabbled in chemical weapons it seems you want to bomb Syria to destruction.
How many people is that going to kill ?
Or is killing with drones and cruise missiles okay with you ?
And as for using chemical weapons without consequences what are you going to do to the USA for their use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and depleted uranium shells in Iraq ?
Rowenna putting an interesting gloss on the Commons vote in the Sky News papers review.
Her line is that the whole of the Labour party have been stunned by Cameron ruling out military intervention completely and without qualification after the vote was announced.
Her line is that Miliband was never, and is still not, opposed to military action but was only demanding a more cautious and less rushed approach to making the decision.
She claims Miliband would support a second vote on the issue, if, or when, his initial concerns were satisfied.
Now I know that Rowenna is not yet at the very top of the Labour party, but surely she was briefed by the Labour press office before appearing tonight on Sky News.
It does look as if Miliband is getting worried about the fallout from the UK's abject surrender landing on his shoulders. SeanT as always reading the tea-leaves early.
Rowenna putting an interesting gloss on the Commons vote in the Sky News papers review.
Her line is that the whole of the Labour party have been stunned by Cameron ruling out military intervention completely and without qualification after the vote was announced.
Her line is that Miliband was never, and is still not, opposed to military action but was only demanding a more cautious and less rushed approach to making the decision.
She claims Miliband would support a second vote on the issue, if, or when, his initial concerns were satisfied.
Now I know that Rowenna is not yet at the very top of the Labour party, but surely she was briefed by the Labour press office before appearing tonight on Sky News.
It does look as if Miliband is getting worried about the fallout from the UK's abject surrender landing on his shoulders. SeanT as always reading the tea-leaves early.
That`s rubbish by Rowena.Logic indicates that if Miliband wanted that,he would have supported Cameron in the lame-duck motion safe in the knowledge that there has to be another vote before military action can be taken.Cameron produced a wafer-thin sheet about evidence and no plans and expected the opposition to support him without putting enough safeguards in and paid the price.All Miliband says is `you produce the evidence and plans first and we`ll give you our votes` but Cameron came arrogantly turned up and expected the opposition to fall in line.
Of course he can't. And that is the great flaw in the argument by all those pushing for military action. They have no concept of how that can be done, what the targets would be and what the end game is. They talk about 'punishment' but would run a mile from the only really effective way to fight a war which is with boots on the ground.
This is why I oppose military action even if it were proved that Assad ordered the attacks. It is pointless, ill considered and will only hurt those who we are supposed to be protecting - the Syrian civilian population.
This is the problem. No one wants to talk endgame. We all know it but everyone in favour of military action is avoiding the subject because the endgame is 250,000 American and British troops in Syria overseeing a very disorderly transition of power like Iraq and Afghanistan. We've been there and done that, it doesn't work.
It is absolutely pointless to have a discussion about military intervention without also talking about where intervention will lead us. This is not Libya where we can sort of rely on the opposition/rebels to head toward a democratic future with low influence from Islamist groups. The rebels in Syria are not very nice people, not better or worse than Assad to be quite honest. Clearing the way for them with air power and a no fly zone like Libya is not a course of action that should be considered, it's also why we haven't armed them, because those arms, once they have destroyed Assad, will be pointed back at us by the groups we give them to.
So fine, let's discuss military intervention and punishing Assad for using chemical warfare, but let's also discuss the logical conclusion of that intervention. I for one am not in favour of another Afghanistan or Iraq style conflict where we are there for the next 10 years keeping the peace between two side that hate us more than they hate each other.
"But Ed Miliband needs to pray that the Syrian government doesn’t commit any more atrocities. Because David Cameron is going to lay them all at his door from now on."
A ridiculous point since cruise missiles are hardly renowned for their healing powers or their ability to gather evidence on and capture war criminals.
Nonetheless, if that's the 'logic' from those intent on military strikes then they had also better pray that the Rebels and Al-Qaeda factions aligned to them don't also commit any more atrocities. Which is somewhat unlikely since both they and Assad have done so long before this and will continue to do so the more desperate and intractable an escalated civil war gets.
What would you do, Mick?
I liked DavidL's suggestion of individual responsibility, no idea if it is workable.
So what would you do?
I've stated it many times before and also before parliament was recalled. What Amnesty have been calling for since 2011. The UNSC to use all possible evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity from this and other incidents gathered to refer that evidence to the International Criminal Court with a view to stating criminal proceedings against those responsible.
Increasing targeted economic sanctions against the Assad regime, the complete condemnation of the Rebels and possible diplomatic repercussions when they commit war crimes, a far greater humanitarian relief effort and a huge increase in the international human rights monitors on the ground are all viable and desirable actions that could be taken.
Plunging an intractable civil war into ever deeper and more vicious bloodshed with a barrage of cruise missile strikes against one side in a civil war is not. It has no possible utility other than degrading one side in that civil war while running the immense danger of escalating the conflict further and sending the message that chemical weapon usage will result in the US taking sides against a regime regardless of the conduct of those who wish to topple a regime and with a seemingly scant regard for evidence.
I realise you're embarrassed by Camerons incompetence, but if he thought he was being doublecrossed or outboundered or whatever he calls it he should've just pulled the vote and said "we can't judge this sensibly until we have the US and UN intelligence reports"
but he didn't, and you know why? Because his own side hadn't got a clue how their own MPs would vote, or even where they were in some cases.
tim
Don't be silly,
The government motion, which had been heavily revised to include the specific concerns raised by Miliband, was a statement of principle with no commitment to action. It was subject to a second vote before any military action could be sanctioned.
There was absolutely no justification to oppose the motion or the timing of its presentation to the House on the grounds it anticipated rather than followed the US and UN intelligence reports.
Miliband had already been briefed by the Secuirty Council and Cameron on all the available intelligence information two days before the vote.
Try again. At least Rowenna is defending Miliband's duplicity in a more intelligent and charming manner.
Rowenna putting an interesting gloss on the Commons vote in the Sky News papers review.
Her line is that the whole of the Labour party have been stunned by Cameron ruling out military intervention completely and without qualification after the vote was announced.
Her line is that Miliband was never, and is still not, opposed to military action but was only demanding a more cautious and less rushed approach to making the decision.
She claims Miliband would support a second vote on the issue, if, or when, his initial concerns were satisfied.
Now I know that Rowenna is not yet at the very top of the Labour party, but surely she was briefed by the Labour press office before appearing tonight on Sky News.
It does look as if Miliband is getting worried about the fallout from the UK's abject surrender landing on his shoulders. SeanT as always reading the tea-leaves early.
I have to confess the idea had occured to me as well, particularly given Labour's amendement did not rule out action.
It was like 'Will the PM confirm he won't use the Royal Prerogative to declare war until the Commons says so[after the UN report, maybe]?' and Cameron was all 'No problem, you win dingleberry, I confirm we won't even try to take any action now, like you wanted, huh' 'No, wait...' ' too late'
I think it more likely both sides realized neither would get what they wanted through and Ed M has spun his measure as being against any action at all, ever, as a fallback position which is popular. I think the above is a bit too out there.
And if the polling is the critical factor as some believe, both parties would be mad to try again no matter the provocation.
I realise you're embarrassed by Camerons incompetence, but if he thought he was being doublecrossed or outboundered or whatever he calls it he should've just pulled the vote and said "we can't judge this sensibly until we have the US and UN intelligence reports"
but he didn't, and you know why? Because his own side hadn't got a clue how their own MPs would vote, or even where they were in some cases.
Get the frigging huge beam out of your Leader's eye before presuming to lecture us about the speck of dust in ours.
He couldn't beat Brown, he couldn't get the boundary changes, and he can't deliver his own side on matters of war and peace. Whats the point of David Cameron?
Or indeed a weak untrustworthy one Its that old Labour motto rearing its head, do as we say, but not as we do. Ed Miliband reneges on a cross party agreement on a UK response to Syrian crisis, and then votes against it last night effectively leaving the UK with no position other than turning the other cheek. Then today Ed Miliband "urged the Government not to "wash its hands of Syria" while claiming that "we are permanent members of the Security Council and must fulfil our responsibilities".
1) What the goal of military intervention would be. 2) How it would be achieved. 3) What the consequences would be.
1) The degradation of the Syrian Chemical/WMD programme and delivery systems and the trial of those who authorised and deployed those WMDs and warning to the Syrian Rebels and other world leaders that use of Chemical weapons will no longer be tolerated
2) Military strikes against the Syrian government and military complex, and yes that means targeting Assad
3) Some bad things will undoubtedly happen, but that is better than letting world leaders thinking they can use chemical weapons without consequences.
As there's evidence that both sides have dabbled in chemical weapons it seems you want to bomb Syria to destruction.
How many people is that going to kill ?
Or is killing with drones and cruise missiles okay with you ?
And as for using chemical weapons without consequences what are you going to do to the USA for their use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and depleted uranium shells in Iraq ?
Let me make one thing very clear, just because people advocate against action Assad there is no automaticity that we're also supporters of the rebels. I'm not.
Killing isn't really my first choice and I'm aware innocents are going to die with the military action.
Re America, I've condemned for that, and will continue to do so.
I realise you're embarrassed by Camerons incompetence, but if he thought he was being doublecrossed or outboundered or whatever he calls it he should've just pulled the vote and said "we can't judge this sensibly until we have the US and UN intelligence reports"
but he didn't, and you know why? Because his own side hadn't got a clue how their own MPs would vote, or even where they were in some cases.
Get the frigging huge beam out of your Leader's eye before presuming to lecture us about the speck of dust in ours.
He couldn't beat Brown, he couldn't get the boundary changes, and he can't deliver his own side on matters of war and peace. Whats the point of David Cameron?
Er, tim, sad drunk, he did beat Brown. That's why he's PM. Did you get an E in your GCSE politics re-sit?
Camerons fit of pique ruling out military support when there's a majority in the house for it was a bit odd.
Not really, that's the only smart move Cameron made. Now whatever happens in Syria falls on Ed's plate and Ed will have to plead with the PM for a second vote to sanction military action, forcing him to take an Iraq like position on intervention, destroying his currently held reputation as a peacenik.
@tim - There's one thing, and one thing only, which matters about the politics of yesterday's vote: that the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (who had already been briefed on the intelligence), for purely cynical party-political reasons, and contrary to assurances he had given only hours earlier, led his party into the No lobby. Not out of principle, not because he disagreed on any substantive point with the government, not because any genuine concerns hadn't been addressed (they had, every one of them), not because this was an irreversible blank cheque (it wasn't, another vote had been promised), but purely and simply as a cheap party-political stunt.
Less than 24 hours later, a Democrat Secretary of State - and hardly a warmonger or a Blair by anyone's standard - lays bare the full horror of the blunder Miliband had made. Read it, and weep:
I realise you're embarrassed by Camerons incompetence, but if he thought he was being doublecrossed or outboundered or whatever he calls it he should've just pulled the vote and said "we can't judge this sensibly until we have the US and UN intelligence reports"
but he didn't, and you know why? Because his own side hadn't got a clue how their own MPs would vote, or even where they were in some cases.
Get the frigging huge beam out of your Leader's eye before presuming to lecture us about the speck of dust in ours.
He couldn't beat Brown, he couldn't get the boundary changes, and he can't deliver his own side on matters of war and peace. Whats the point of David Cameron?
He looks good on a beach!Oh wait!
I only wish I looked that, well, not good, but reasonable!
Iain @Iain_33 If you actually look at Ed Miliband last night when the 2nd vote was announced - the colour drained from his face, he thought Dave would win
It would have been so much more straightforward for Ed if the government bill had passed. Intervention in Syria of this form is unlikely to change anything and besides he'd always have the second bill to consider whether to back intervention. He would have been able to make a "Cameron's being too gung-ho, learn the Iraq lessons" line straightforwardly. Now he's on shifting sands and it's not clear where everyone will be when the music stops (to mix metaphors).
Iain @Iain_33 If you actually look at Ed Miliband last night when the 2nd vote was announced - the colour drained from his face, he thought Dave would win
If he was not ecstatic about it, the woefully inappropriate cheering from his people certainly covered for it.
I think we're clutching at straws a little on this one, trying to seek less obvious explanations for Ed M's actions and hopes, not to mention it relied on Cameron being canny enough to turn massive humiliating defeat into a potential thread to recover (as per MaxPB's suggestion) his standing within at worse seconds and at best minutes. I don't think Cameron has that within him.
Yep, Nigel Farage managed to read the entire Syria situation and the wider security implications while sitting in the pub with a pint and a fag in his hand. He never even had to worry about leaving the pub to vote down any response to the Syrian situation by the UK Government, he just took a quick glance at the polling and he was in the driving seat of the latest bandwagon.
A particularly ignorant and ill informed comment given that UKIP has had a clear policy of being opposed to any intervention in Syria since the very start of the civil war.
Of course if you had bothered to spend 30 seconds finding out about it you would have known that but it is so much easier to sit in front of your computer and just make stuff up based on your own prejudice.
I realise you're embarrassed by Camerons incompetence, but if he thought he was being doublecrossed or outboundered or whatever he calls it he should've just pulled the vote and said "we can't judge this sensibly until we have the US and UN intelligence reports"
but he didn't, and you know why? Because his own side hadn't got a clue how their own MPs would vote, or even where they were in some cases.
Get the frigging huge beam out of your Leader's eye before presuming to lecture us about the speck of dust in ours.
He couldn't beat Brown, he couldn't get the boundary changes, and he can't deliver his own side on matters of war and peace. Whats the point of David Cameron?
He looks good on a beach!Oh wait!
I only wish I looked that, well, not good, but reasonable!
Don`t put yourself down mate...We post online...We all look like David Beckham!
Iain @Iain_33 If you actually look at Ed Miliband last night when the 2nd vote was announced - the colour drained from his face, he thought Dave would win
If he was not ecstatic about it, the woefully inappropriate cheering from his people certainly covered for it.
I think we're clutching at straws a little on this one, trying to seek less obvious explanations for Ed M's actions and hopes, not to mention it relied on Cameron being canny enough to turn massive humiliating defeat into a potential thread to recover (as per MaxPB's suggestion) his standing within at worse seconds and at best minutes. I don't think Cameron has that within him.
Dave under pressure is a different person to lazy fat Dave we've all become used to since around 2008. Under pressure Dave tends to come up with the goods, there is a clear thought process and political calculation to be made. Tying the "no intervention" vote to Ed is a smart move, and one that Dave under pressure would make. Lazy Dave would not, he is too complacent.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Targetting the Syrian regime and military/intelligence infrastructure, until Assad surrenders to face criminal charges
Only someone with absolutely no military knowledge could post something so naive. I assume you are also advocating bombing Tripoli and Beirut in Lebanon since much of the pro-Syrian Government command and control structure is scattered through the suburbs of those cities.
and yes, bombing Lebanon is an option
Eagles, I did think that you were suffering from a dose of self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
But it seems your problems on this issue go much deeper.
You would be willing to kill neutral civilians in one country because you object to the methods by which two unpleasant groups in another country are fighting a civil war ?!?
The sight of those who claimed to be against a military attack venting their fury on little Ed is almost as hypocritical and sickening as those who supported the Iraq War venting their fury on Blair.
Little Ed is no more responsible for whipping Cammie's backbenchers than Cammie is for whipping little Eds.
@tim - Your entire range of points is about process.
Maybe you're right. Of course Blair and Campbell would never have got the corralling of their party sheep so wrong.
That doesn't alter the fact that Miliband deliberately led his party through the wrong lobby, in a grave matter, for cynical short-term reasons, and despite himself knowing full well it was the wrong lobby.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Targetting the Syrian regime and military/intelligence infrastructure, until Assad surrenders to face criminal charges
Only someone with absolutely no military knowledge could post something so naive. I assume you are also advocating bombing Tripoli and Beirut in Lebanon since much of the pro-Syrian Government command and control structure is scattered through the suburbs of those cities.
and yes, bombing Lebanon is an option
Eagles, I did think that you were suffering from a dose of self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
But it seems your problems on this issue go much deeper.
You would be willing to kill neutral civilians in one country because you object to the methods by which two unpleasant groups in another country are fighting a civil war ?!?
The simple proof that the pro-intervention lobby don't really care about the moral case is how they complete ignore that attacking Assad's heavy weapons helps the rebels win - the same rebels who are all over youtube openly *as propaganda* executing prisoners, cutting people's heads off and eating hearts.
The pro-intervention lobby won't acknowledge this reality because they know the entirely foreseeable Rwanda that follows from their strategy destroys the moral case.
I was so angry last night at what the Commons had done, I may be a Cameron cheerleader on here but the guy must get fed up trying to balance his own backbenchers and the Libdems in this uneasy Coalition day to day. But he genuinely feels passionate about responding to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, last night was about him giving Parliament the chance to back that position without yet having to vote on military action.
But when Ed Miliband then reneged on a strong cross party response to Assad's Regime and the UN after Cameron had taken on board his concerns, I wouldn't have blamed him if he had just chucked in the towel last night and left them to it. I am really sure that Ed Miliband wants a GE right now about as much as Clegg does. And we know that there are about 30 Tory MP's who don't mind going back to Opposition in the hope of yet again stabbing another Leader in the back.
Now we are left with this impossible situation where we have tied our PM's hands and completely turned out faces away from the situation in Syria. This isn't just Cameron's humiliation, its one that belongs to our whole Parliament. And all Clegg and Miliband had to do was marshal their own troops, something they both failed to do either. But the sight of those Labour MP's cheering the result of a vote left us no position to even send a strongly worded warning to Assad was stomach turning, they hadn't even thought that far ahead. At least the Tories missed a political bullet by not electing that copper bottomed s*** David Davis, but Labour still elected theirs.
@fitalass - To be fair, you can't criticise Clegg and the LibDems on this. They were remarkably solid, and Clegg's defence of the case for maintaining the international consensus that chemical weapons are beyond the pale was exemplary.
Let me make one thing very clear, just because people advocate against action Assad there is no automaticity that we're also supporters of the rebels. I'm not.
Killing isn't really my first choice and I'm aware innocents are going to die with the military action.
What? You're in favour of killing innocents who happen to be near the military base of group A, but you don't necessarily want group A to lose to rival group B? You just want to kill some people as a show of force against chemical weapons, after which we wave a hand and tell them to get on with their war?
That's normal though isn't it? Pro-EU politicos. The politicos recommend joining the Euro too, but the Danes rejected it in a referendum.
Nick I am surprised at your misreading of this. There is still a clear majority against abandoning the opt outs although that is now narrowing. Most commentators in Denmark see the Opposition pushing for the referendum as soon as possible as them wanting it to be lost and fearing that if the vote is delayed the pro-EU vote will only get stronger.
Can you cite a source for that? Venstre (the party in question and by far the largest right-wing party) has never been especially Eurosceptical, so far as I know, and Rasmussen's quote in the article that I linked to is uneqivocally in favour of dropping the opt-outs. Are you saying he's a cunning operator and secretly hopes they'll lose?
Dave's point is stronger - they could hold it and still lose. But I don't think they want to.
Ed "I don't give a f*ck about spasming Syrian kids dying in their 1000s" Miliband
Is that really what he wants? Cause that is what he now looks like. And I speak as someone who is against intervention.
The blowback for this could be terrible for Labour. It is so easy to make Miliband look bad.
Whatever one's politics, I think that part will not be questioned by anyone. Be it down to his own weakness or just a crappy set of backbenchers and a coalition partner to deal with, anyone would struggle to wrangle that bunch of malcontents. Barely a lick of consistent loyalty among them.
Of course, strength of parliament over executive, diminishing leader control, not necessarily bad things, in fact some are good, but they must be immensely frustrating even if the trend of them doing do could be a positive development for future parliaments.
Still raging about EdM not saving Cameron's skin yesterday? Surely it's time to move on.
If you can only get 272 of your 359 MPs to back you and rely on the LotO to rescue you you have a serious problem.
Much like Blair in 03?
Blair had the cushion of a big majority.Dave tried to gamble big with little security and lost the house!
He still wouldn't have won it without the Opposition, so he relied on them in that situation.
But Iain Duncan Smith`s Tories were even hawkish than Blair.Whereas Miliband has already apologised for Iraq and he was going to be harder to convince with `just my judgement` and little evidence.
The Tories, if they are ruthless and nasty enough, can really NAIL this to Miliband (and I suspect they will be facilitated by the US, who, presumably, right now, despise the bastard).
Miliband needs to be painted as the guy who is totally cool with spasming Syrian kids being gassed to death, as long as it helps his career, and the Labour party. After all, he knifed his brother, why should he care about infants in Aleppo?
Contrast him with Statesman Cameron, who wanted to save the kids from spasming and dying, but who went to parliament to ask permission first.
All the necessary material is there: some of it is excellent. Do they have the wit to use it?
Therein lies the challenge for CCHQ over the next few days. They can't make it too obvious though, a tweet with a picture of a dead Syrian kid saying "LOOK AT WHAT RED CND ED DID!!!!" won't work, and sadly that seems to be their modus operandi lately.
But Iain Duncan Smith`s Tories were even hawkish than Blair.Whereas Miliband has already apologised for Iraq and he was going to be harder to convince with `just my judgement` and little evidence.
Still relied on them in the way Jonathan describes, i.e. saving his skin. WIthout the Tories support the vote would have been lost by a large margin.
Still raging about EdM not saving Cameron's skin yesterday? Surely it's time to move on.
If you can only get 272 of your 359 MPs to back you and rely on the LotO to rescue you you have a serious problem.
And if the Tories had decided to play the same game in 2003, well, goodbye Tony Blair. Bloody fools weren't they, as I'm sure you'll agree. By the way as a candidate in 2005 did you profess support for the Iraq war?
....And yes, doesn't it reflect rather well on Cameron that he was prepared to face down a sizeable minority in his own party for something he genuinely believed, anticipating that having gone the extra mile to address Miliband's concerns, that would be reflected at least in the substantive motion?
I read somewhere at lunchtime that Obama & Co are not best pleased with Ed Miliband today, reminds me of the Michael Howard difficulties with the Bush administration. I wonder if Miliband will be granted an audience with Obama any time this side of the GE?
Iain @Iain_33 If you actually look at Ed Miliband last night when the 2nd vote was announced - the colour drained from his face, he thought Dave would win
If he was not ecstatic about it, the woefully inappropriate cheering from his people certainly covered for it.
I think we're clutching at straws a little on this one, trying to seek less obvious explanations for Ed M's actions and hopes, not to mention it relied on Cameron being canny enough to turn massive humiliating defeat into a potential thread to recover (as per MaxPB's suggestion) his standing within at worse seconds and at best minutes. I don't think Cameron has that within him.
Dave under pressure is a different person to lazy fat Dave we've all become used to since around 2008. Under pressure Dave tends to come up with the goods, there is a clear thought process and political calculation to be made. Tying the "no intervention" vote to Ed is a smart move, and one that Dave under pressure would make. Lazy Dave would not, he is too complacent.
The Tories, if they are ruthless and nasty enough, can really NAIL this to Miliband (and I suspect they will be facilitated by the US, who, presumably, right now, despise the bastard).
Miliband needs to be painted as the guy who is totally cool with spasming Syrian kids being gassed to death, as long as it helps his career, and the Labour party. After all, he knifed his brother, why should he care about infants in Aleppo?
Contrast him with Statesman Cameron, who wanted to save the kids from spasming and dying, but who went to parliament to ask permission first.
All the necessary material is there: some of it is excellent. Do they have the wit to use it?
@Richard_Tyndall - Did you ever reply to my point yesterday about Farage accusing Cameron and Hague of being 'hungry for war'?
If not, I quite understand your embarrassment at being associated with a party whose leader said that.
Not embarrassed at all. Its politics, something you have been banging on about all day whilst I have been talking about the proper question of intervention or not. I do note that most of your posts have been concerned with party politics and attacking Miliband rather than the actual question at hand.
I also note that Cameron has been happy to see the insults hurled with his own minister talking about 'giving succour to Assad'. Where is your condemnation of that if you are so bothered about political insults.
The day you start posting anything that is not politically partisan is the day you will have the right to start complaining about political insults.
But Iain Duncan Smith`s Tories were even hawkish than Blair.Whereas Miliband has already apologised for Iraq and he was going to be harder to convince with `just my judgement` and little evidence.
Still relied on them in the way Jonathan describes, i.e. saving his skin. WIthout the Tories support the vote would have been lost by a large margin.
Fact is Blair won,Cameron lost.Deal with it! All he needed to do was to convince one or two backbenchers of his party or Lib Dems and the DUP and he would have saved his face.A lot of the Labour MP`s were absent from the vote and Cam still couldn`t do it.
Still we can at least get a grim sort of wry amusement from the whole appalling affair by reminding ourselves that, only two days ago, Roger said it would be hard to portray Assad as a monster.
R.I.P. The Special Relationship. Tomorrow's Sun front page #syria pic.twitter.com/E0dRnovWrh
Want to know what the 'special relationship' is:
British soldiers fight in American wars American soldiers don't fight in British wars
I believe there's a similar arrangement now with extradition treaties.
The "Special Relationship" is very specific. It relates, solely and entirely, to the embedding of military intelligence within each other nations facilities. (I am family, friends, for instance with a former US naval liaison to the British naval intelligence). They get to go everywhere, and see everything.
Anything else is crud made up by the media and politicians
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Targetting the Syrian regime and military/intelligence infrastructure, until Assad surrenders to face criminal charges
Only someone with absolutely no military knowledge could post something so naive. I assume you are also advocating bombing Tripoli and Beirut in Lebanon since much of the pro-Syrian Government command and control structure is scattered through the suburbs of those cities.
and yes, bombing Lebanon is an option
Eagles, I did think that you were suffering from a dose of self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
But it seems your problems on this issue go much deeper.
You would be willing to kill neutral civilians in one country because you object to the methods by which two unpleasant groups in another country are fighting a civil war ?!?
No.
So lets get this straight, you would or would not support bombing Tripoli and Beirut - with the inevitable consequence of civilian casualties in those cities?
Or are you one of those who still believe the myth about 'precision' bombing and 'smart' missiles?
The rhetoric is totally OTT today. If a NO vote is so unthinkable, why on Earth bother with a vote at all.
The fact that folk simply were unprepared for this speaks volumes.
People need to shut up, deal with it and move on. And if facts emerge, have another vote.
What emerging facts that weren't known could provoke another vote? If you vote down the principle of acting at all while most accepted the statement Assad was behind the chemical attacks which killed hundreds, as I think most MPs did (some doubted that, but my sense was most in objection did so because of other reasons), then new facts should not change their minds.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the previous post.
Fair enough!Blair had made Bush extract the promise from Iain Duncan Smith that he would not double-cross him according to his biography.So he had the guarantees.Blair atleast said he would have resigned if he lost.Cameron needs to answer this question!
The polling on Syria was far more opposed than just about any other proposed military action over the past 50 years. I can find nothing comparative where the figures were two to one against.
Government by polling is not good government. It's not leadership.
Moreover, in this case, the public did not, and could not, have the facts before making their judgement.
The polling on Syria was far more opposed than just about any other proposed military action over the past 50 years. I can find nothing comparative where the figures were two to one against.
Government by polling is not good government. It's not leadership.
Moreover, in this case, the public did not, and could not, have the facts before making their judgement.
Comments
I liked DavidL's suggestion of individual responsibility, no idea if it is workable.
So what would you do?
More than that will depend on what happens next.
1) What the goal of military intervention would be.
2) How it would be achieved.
3) What the consequences would be.
But its so much to easier to announce that he wants to 'punish' WMD users (provided that is they're people Eagles disapproves of) and to make ridiculous analogies with Saddam.
Eagles, you're wasting your abilities writing thread headers for Mike, a position at Cameron's high table is surely yours for the asking.
"I don't think it will have much effect on the polls, except possibly on the Lib/Lab spectrum."
Really? I think it'll be significant. Even more than Osborne's budget this seems to have resonated and apart from people on here it's pretty unanimous
Miliband = Bayern Munich?
Cameron = Chelsea?
No place for me at Dave's high table, I upset him with some of my threads according to The Sunday Times.
A little post by a resident that says much in its straightforwardness.
'the tank base that has been situated to the right of my house for the past year has been moved to behind it'
They have even borrowed his brother's banana.
ETA: Well blow me down - I read the thing about Cricket last year I think, not sure where, but a quick search reveals a programme including that very topic less than a week ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01fc5tf
I wonder who would actually make a good whip for the tory benches, I'm not well versed with the hard-hitters on the backbenchers (presuming their are any).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/West-With-The-Night-VMC/dp/0860685411/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377898499&sr=8-1&keywords=west+with+the+night
How far back do you have to go to find a leader of either of the two main parties who was so puerile, naive and shifty? I've been following politics for nearly fifty years and I can't think of any leader who would have behaved as irresponsibly as he did. Even Brown looks like a towering statesman in comparison.
If he had an ounce of integrity he would resign tonight. He won't, of course.
If one was voting Tory, and was opposed to intervention, then the fact that intervention is not happening will be, in my opinion, enough to stay there for most people. Similarly there will be a small number of Labour voters who wanted intervention and blame Milliband, albeit that most will blame Cameron.
Dealing with the Iraq legacy I get though.
1) What the goal of military intervention would be.
2) How it would be achieved.
3) What the consequences would be.
1) The degradation of the Syrian Chemical/WMD programme and delivery systems and the trial of those who authorised and deployed those WMDs and warning to the Syrian Rebels and other world leaders that use of Chemical weapons will no longer be tolerated
2) Military strikes against the Syrian government and military complex, and yes that means targeting Assad
3) Some bad things will undoubtedly happen, but that is better than letting world leaders thinking they can use chemical weapons without consequences.
So this is the problem.
So far the "intervention" proposed by Obama amounts to lobbing around 200 cruise missiles into Syria at military targets of reasonable probability and then declaring "take that Assad, for daring to use chemical weapons". In reality that kind of intervention really only hurts the civilians in Syria because you can be sure that Assad will have civilians posted at all of his high profile military encampments and targets. Whether or not using civilians as cannon fodder and for purposes of propaganda is correct is not relevant to the debate, that Assad is certain to do it is relevant and we must take this into consideration.
Next, let's put the civilian casualties aside and assume for a minute that this intervention is successful. Who exactly are we handing the country over to? Hardline Islamists, terrorist affiliates, Al-Qaeda affiliates and hardline Islamist mercenaries from across the Middle East. Is that what we really what we want to do as the west? Hand over a country with stockpiles of chemical weapons to this group of people, I don't think so.
So what's the logical conclusion? 250,000 boots on the ground from a western peacekeeping force to oversee a transition to a "democratic" government much like Afghanistan and Iraq.
That last point is why 30 Tories voted the plan down, and why Cameron was idiotic to even consider an intervention that would inevitably mean British troops being sent to a hostile country where neither side is particularly friendly for basically no gain.
Now, Obama may want Russian influence out of the Middle East and sees a proxy war with them in Syria as a method to get them out, but that's not something Britain needs to get involved with. Not in the slightest.
So not so much isolationism as not wanting to blindly follow the US into each and every conflict.
If someone can make a case for intervention beyond "dying children" or "international treaties which we already let Israel violate" then I'm all ears, but right now it is not in our interest to intervene in Syria and that might sound bad, but it is the cold hard truth that Parliament was unable to escape last night and one that Cameron should have seen coming before recalling Parliament. Real sixth form amateur hour politics from Cameron over the last couple of days.
No phone, no internet, no newspapers.
Just me, the wife and children and her extended family. Evenings adorned with garlic-infused lamb, gallons of Sagres, early hours gin sessions and heart disease. Awesome.
David Reed was elected as Labour MP for Sedgefield in 1970 at the age of 25. I think he was the second youngest MP elected in that election after Bernadette Devlin in Mid Ulster.
The Sedgefield constituency was abolished in February 1974 and Reed hasn’t returned to the Commons since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reed_(politician)
Weapons Inspectors update: There appears to be confusion over whether they've left or are about to go in the early hours.
What was EdM thinking of?
I had a very small opinion of him before - this is just beyond pitiful.
This is why I oppose military action even if it were proved that Assad ordered the attacks. It is pointless, ill considered and will only hurt those who we are supposed to be protecting - the Syrian civilian population.
I find some of their stuff weak, but once again I think the DailyMash hit a very good point
Research by the Institute for Studies found that 89% of UK residents were ‘strongly opposed to dwelling on’ military intervention in Syria.
Mother-of-two Emma Bradford said: “I don’t want my mind to be used for thinking about the complex and frightening implications of warfare.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/most-britons-strongly-opposed-to-thinking-about-war-2013082978993
Her line is that the whole of the Labour party have been stunned by Cameron ruling out military intervention completely and without qualification after the vote was announced.
Her line is that Miliband was never, and is still not, opposed to military action but was only demanding a more cautious and less rushed approach to making the decision.
She claims Miliband would support a second vote on the issue, if, or when, his initial concerns were satisfied.
Now I know that Rowenna is not yet at the very top of the Labour party, but surely she was briefed by the Labour press office before appearing tonight on Sky News.
It does look as if Miliband is getting worried about the fallout from the UK's abject surrender landing on his shoulders. SeanT as always reading the tea-leaves early.
How many people is that going to kill ?
Or is killing with drones and cruise missiles okay with you ?
And as for using chemical weapons without consequences what are you going to do to the USA for their use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and depleted uranium shells in Iraq ?
I claim credit for raising that last night and now a few times!
Is Ed going to act like the Labour amendment had been passed?
It is absolutely pointless to have a discussion about military intervention without also talking about where intervention will lead us. This is not Libya where we can sort of rely on the opposition/rebels to head toward a democratic future with low influence from Islamist groups. The rebels in Syria are not very nice people, not better or worse than Assad to be quite honest. Clearing the way for them with air power and a no fly zone like Libya is not a course of action that should be considered, it's also why we haven't armed them, because those arms, once they have destroyed Assad, will be pointed back at us by the groups we give them to.
So fine, let's discuss military intervention and punishing Assad for using chemical warfare, but let's also discuss the logical conclusion of that intervention. I for one am not in favour of another Afghanistan or Iraq style conflict where we are there for the next 10 years keeping the peace between two side that hate us more than they hate each other.
I've stated it many times before and also before parliament was recalled. What Amnesty have been calling for since 2011. The UNSC to use all possible evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity from this and other incidents gathered to refer that evidence to the International Criminal Court with a view to stating criminal proceedings against those responsible.
Increasing targeted economic sanctions against the Assad regime, the complete condemnation of the Rebels and possible diplomatic repercussions when they commit war crimes, a far greater humanitarian relief effort and a huge increase in the international human rights monitors on the ground are all viable and desirable actions that could be taken.
Plunging an intractable civil war into ever deeper and more vicious bloodshed with a barrage of cruise missile strikes against one side in a civil war is not. It has no possible utility other than degrading one side in that civil war while running the immense danger of escalating the conflict further and sending the message that chemical weapon usage will result in the US taking sides against a regime regardless of the conduct of those who wish to topple a regime and with a seemingly scant regard for evidence.
Don't be silly,
The government motion, which had been heavily revised to include the specific concerns raised by Miliband, was a statement of principle with no commitment to action. It was subject to a second vote before any military action could be sanctioned.
There was absolutely no justification to oppose the motion or the timing of its presentation to the House on the grounds it anticipated rather than followed the US and UN intelligence reports.
Miliband had already been briefed by the Secuirty Council and Cameron on all the available intelligence information two days before the vote.
Try again. At least Rowenna is defending Miliband's duplicity in a more intelligent and charming manner.
It was like 'Will the PM confirm he won't use the Royal Prerogative to declare war until the Commons says so[after the UN report, maybe]?' and Cameron was all 'No problem, you win dingleberry, I confirm we won't even try to take any action now, like you wanted, huh' 'No, wait...' ' too late'
I think it more likely both sides realized neither would get what they wanted through and Ed M has spun his measure as being against any action at all, ever, as a fallback position which is popular. I think the above is a bit too out there.
And if the polling is the critical factor as some believe, both parties would be mad to try again no matter the provocation.
Killing isn't really my first choice and I'm aware innocents are going to die with the military action.
Re America, I've condemned for that, and will continue to do so.
Less than 24 hours later, a Democrat Secretary of State - and hardly a warmonger or a Blair by anyone's standard - lays bare the full horror of the blunder Miliband had made. Read it, and weep:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277442/Syria-John-Kerrys-statement-in-full.html
If you actually look at Ed Miliband last night when the 2nd vote was announced - the colour drained from his face, he thought Dave would win
In the US an NBC poll today has 50% of voters opposed to intervention in Syria, with a bare majority supporting missile strikes and almost 80% wanting congressional approval
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite
In France, an IFOP poll has 59% of French voters opposed to French involvement in Syria
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/syria-crisis-france-is-no-longer-shouldertoshoulder-with-us-8790541.html
I think we're clutching at straws a little on this one, trying to seek less obvious explanations for Ed M's actions and hopes, not to mention it relied on Cameron being canny enough to turn massive humiliating defeat into a potential thread to recover (as per MaxPB's suggestion) his standing within at worse seconds and at best minutes. I don't think Cameron has that within him.
Of course if you had bothered to spend 30 seconds finding out about it you would have known that but it is so much easier to sit in front of your computer and just make stuff up based on your own prejudice.
If not, I quite understand your embarrassment at being associated with a party whose leader said that.
'Ed Miliband reneges on a cross party agreement on a UK response to Syrian crisis'
Assad & Putin are delighted by Ed's antics they couldn't have hoped for a better outcome...
But it seems your problems on this issue go much deeper.
You would be willing to kill neutral civilians in one country because you object to the methods by which two unpleasant groups in another country are fighting a civil war ?!?
If you can only get 272 of your 359 MPs to back you and rely on the LotO to rescue you you have a serious problem.
Little Ed is no more responsible for whipping Cammie's backbenchers than Cammie is for whipping little Eds.
Maybe you're right. Of course Blair and Campbell would never have got the corralling of their party sheep so wrong.
That doesn't alter the fact that Miliband deliberately led his party through the wrong lobby, in a grave matter, for cynical short-term reasons, and despite himself knowing full well it was the wrong lobby.
The pro-intervention lobby won't acknowledge this reality because they know the entirely foreseeable Rwanda that follows from their strategy destroys the moral case.
But when Ed Miliband then reneged on a strong cross party response to Assad's Regime and the UN after Cameron had taken on board his concerns, I wouldn't have blamed him if he had just chucked in the towel last night and left them to it. I am really sure that Ed Miliband wants a GE right now about as much as Clegg does. And we know that there are about 30 Tory MP's who don't mind going back to Opposition in the hope of yet again stabbing another Leader in the back.
Now we are left with this impossible situation where we have tied our PM's hands and completely turned out faces away from the situation in Syria. This isn't just Cameron's humiliation, its one that belongs to our whole Parliament. And all Clegg and Miliband had to do was marshal their own troops, something they both failed to do either. But the sight of those Labour MP's cheering the result of a vote left us no position to even send a strongly worded warning to Assad was stomach turning, they hadn't even thought that far ahead. At least the Tories missed a political bullet by not electing that copper bottomed s*** David Davis, but Labour still elected theirs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357240/frances-taxes-are-set-go-again-veronique-de-rugy
Not convinced. Can you cite a source for that? Venstre (the party in question and by far the largest right-wing party) has never been especially Eurosceptical, so far as I know, and Rasmussen's quote in the article that I linked to is uneqivocally in favour of dropping the opt-outs. Are you saying he's a cunning operator and secretly hopes they'll lose?
Dave's point is stronger - they could hold it and still lose. But I don't think they want to.
46% of voters believe that when it comes to Syria Cameron is genuinely concerned to do what is right & in Britain's interests. (Net +13)
That's despite YouGov finding in the same poll 63% launching missiles at Syria will make things worse than better. 15% Disagree
Of course, strength of parliament over executive, diminishing leader control, not necessarily bad things, in fact some are good, but they must be immensely frustrating even if the trend of them doing do could be a positive development for future parliaments.
'and rely on the LotO to rescue you you have a serious problem.'
So the same as Blair and the Iraq vote.
I'm not saying that I'm right!
I take the view of not doing anything maybe the worst option of all.
....And yes, doesn't it reflect rather well on Cameron that he was prepared to face down a sizeable minority in his own party for something he genuinely believed, anticipating that having gone the extra mile to address Miliband's concerns, that would be reflected at least in the substantive motion?
I also note that Cameron has been happy to see the insults hurled with his own minister talking about 'giving succour to Assad'. Where is your condemnation of that if you are so bothered about political insults.
The day you start posting anything that is not politically partisan is the day you will have the right to start complaining about political insults.
The fact that folk simply were unprepared for this speaks volumes.
People need to shut up, deal with it and move on. And if facts emerge, have another vote.
All he needed to do was to convince one or two backbenchers of his party or Lib Dems and the DUP and he would have saved his face.A lot of the Labour MP`s were absent from the vote and Cam still couldn`t do it.
Anything else is crud made up by the media and politicians
Or are you one of those who still believe the myth about 'precision' bombing and 'smart' missiles?
Moreover, in this case, the public did not, and could not, have the facts before making their judgement.