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 have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
Mr. Richard, must say that the US agreeing with Argentina over the UN getting involved over the Falklands does not sit well with the notion of loyal allies.
Mr. Eagles, indeed.
The Monroe doctrine is a fundamental principle of US foreign policy.
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.
Eagles, you can get as many things clear as you want but the practical effect of bombing one side in a war is that it helps the other side.
And the consequences of that will be your responsibility.
And how fair of you - you condemn the USA but you want to bomb Syria.
Do you really give a toss about WMDs as you say ? Or do you only give a toss about WMDs as long as its not your side that's using them ?
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.
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.
Calling the vote was Mr Cameron's choice. It would have made more sense if he'd waited until after the UN inspectors had reported on their findings before calling for a vote.
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.
Agreed. Needs to be more subtle than that. But the point could still be lethally effective: Labour are disgusting and have no morals (which is true), their leader is simultaneously dislikeable, geeky and pungently self-interested.
I suggest a random picture of a war-blinded child in maybe Egypt: with some slogan like = "David Cameron Wants Britain to Make the World Better. Ed Miliband Wants Your Vote."
The electorate will understand.
And Cerise could just as easily point at the rebel propaganda videos on youtube.
edit: How it plays out on balance will depend on which ones the media choose to stress.
The Blairite cheerleaders for war seem to forget that their beloved 'man of peace' Blair also tried to lay the blame for the gassing of Kurds at Halabja at the feet of those who opposed military intervention as well as various other atrocities.
Needless to say It did not work and repeating that kind of counterproductive stupidity when the public are clearly against military intervention is cretinous idiocy.
Not least because when that occured Iraq was then America’s ally and when it used chemical weapons we did not assault Baghdad.
And not least because it was don with US approval.
@Richard_Tyndall - Thank you. You have proved the point I was making.
You are clearly losing it now Richard. So please do answer the question, since I answered yours.
Since you are clearly so sensitive to these political insults, are you also condemning the claim made by Hammond that Miliband was giving succour to Assad?
Or are you just as much a hypocrite on this matter as you are on everything else?
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 have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
Your party, and your leader, voted for MORE gassed and spasming Syrian kids.
Are you proud? How many more GASSED, FROTHING SYRIAN CHILDREN DO YOU WANT? Does your leader Ed "Gas the Babies" Miliband have a chart on the wall, with, like, a THREE MILLION GASSED TORMENTED SPASMING BABIES threshold where he will change his mind for the nineteenth time and finally vote in favour of stopping all the gassing?
Sean T seems to have changed his mind and joined the PB Warmongers - sad, really. Was looking forward to his "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece in the DT...
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?
I say
Point 1 - Yes, in limited circumstances, I don't believe those circumstances exist at the moment.
Point 2 - No I don't believe in precision bombing and smart missiles, I'm fully aware that any action has a significant risk of escalating further.
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.
Eagles, you can get as many things clear as you want but the practical effect of bombing one side in a war is that it helps the other side.
And the consequences of that will be your responsibility.
And how fair of you - you condemn the USA but you want to bomb Syria.
Do you really give a toss about WMDs as you say ? Or do you only give a toss about WMDs as long as its not your side that's using them ?
I do give a toss about the use of WMD, for example I'm a fan of not replacing Trident
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 have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
Ah, so the job of the LOTO is to oppose. Screw the national interest. Er, that's precisely the point many of us our making.
Play that again? That 'weak' opposition was what kept your beloved Prime Minister in his job. Because they didn't believe that the job of the LOTO was to cynically oppose on a matter of such importance and screw the national interest.
Since you are clearly so sensitive to these political insults, are you also condemning the claim made by Hammond that Miliband was giving succour to Assad?
No, of course I don't condemn that. It is completely true:
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
Your mistake (apart from your normal anti-Cameron prejudice) is that you don't seem to understand the distinction between ruling out action in principle, and sensible concerns about the practicalities and possible repercussions of action. Nor do you seem to understand the fundamental point about why the red line on chemical weapons in particular is important.
I posted at some length on this latter point earlier today, so I won't repeat myself, other than to point out that it was, contrary to your absurd accusation a few moments ago, a completely non-partisan post discussing the substance of the issue.
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.
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.
Calling the vote was Mr Cameron's choice. It would have made more sense if he'd waited until after the UN inspectors had reported on their findings before calling for a vote.
The only thing that the UN inspectors will report on will be the chemical characteristics of the gases. They will not/cannot report on those who were responsible for the attack. It is already evident from MSF medical reports and video images that a chemical agent was used. So to wait on the inspectors' findings would not have made more sense.
The Daily Mail editorial in a pro Cameron slant shocker and calls Ed Miliband an OLS*
What a contrast to the Labour leader, who repaid Mr Cameron’s straight-dealing with a display of wriggling political opportunism that should fill the nation with distaste.
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?
I say
Point 1 - Yes, in limited circumstances, I don't believe those circumstances exist at the moment.
Point 2 - No I don't believe in precision bombing and smart missiles, I'm fully aware that any action has a significant risk of escalating further.
Of course they exist. A large part of the Syrian Government forces - and those who are apparently most brutal in their campaign against rebels and civilians alike - are Hezbollah forces from Lebanon. They are controlled and supplied from Lebanon and their commanders sit in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. It is since these forces got involved that the Government forces have regained the upper hand. If you are serious about making any real difference in the Civil War then that is one place you will need to target your bombs and missiles.
So you are in effect accepting that to make any difference you will have to accept killing Lebanese civilians.
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 have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
Ah, so the job of the LOTO is to oppose. Screw the national interest. Er, that's precisely the point many of us our making.
Play that again? That 'weak' opposition was what kept your beloved Prime Minister in his job. Because they didn't believe that the job of the LOTO was to cynically oppose on a matter of such importance and screw the national interest.
Difficult to take lectures about national interest seriously when Cameron couldn't even be arsed to get govt ministers to vote. If its in the national interst you need to remove the lazy lard arse and get yourself a leader who can be bothered.
Now now, we have to be consistent here - was he lazy and didn't bother to, or is he incompetent and tried but failed to manage it? I don't think he can be both.
The only thing that the UN inspectors will report on will be the chemical characteristics of the gases. They will not/cannot report on those who were responsible for the attack. It is already evident from MSF medical reports and video images that a chemical agent was used. So to wait on the inspectors' findings would not have made more sense.
It makes sense because the actual gas used and how it was fired throws light on the technical capacity of the people firing it. For example the original eye-witness reports of an orange-brown gas and people frothing at the mouth isn't Sarin. Also the original eye-witness reports of mortar bombs is a lot more low-tech than Kerry saying rockets.
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.
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.
Calling the vote was Mr Cameron's choice. It would have made more sense if he'd waited until after the UN inspectors had reported on their findings before calling for a vote.
The only thing that the UN inspectors will report on will be the chemical characteristics of the gases. They will not/cannot report on those who were responsible for the attack. It is already evident from MSF medical reports and video images that a chemical agent was used. So to wait on the inspectors' findings would not have made more sense.
The videos are suggestive, the UN report will hopefully be clear. Mr Cameron couldn't even offer the certainly that chemical weapons had been used.
"Difficult to take lectures about national interest seriously when Cameron couldn't even be arsed to get govt ministers to vote."
I doubt the government ministers part is going to enter into the public consciousness. Ed Miliband is going to take the weight for better or worse. It's clear from his comments after - although he may switch back - that he now wants to come across as embodying the result of the votes (i.e. no action). He wants credit; he may get it, he may not.
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?
I say
Point 1 - Yes, in limited circumstances, I don't believe those circumstances exist at the moment.
Point 2 - No I don't believe in precision bombing and smart missiles, I'm fully aware that any action has a significant risk of escalating further.
Of course they exist. A large part of the Syrian Government forces - and those who are apparently most brutal in their campaign against rebels and civilians alike - are Hezbollah forces from Lebanon. They are controlled and supplied from Lebanon and their commanders sit in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. It is since these forces got involved that the Government forces have regained the upper hand. If you are serious about making any real difference in the Civil War then that is one place you will need to target your bombs and missiles.
So you are in effect accepting that to make any difference you will have to accept killing Lebanese civilians.
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.
I have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
Your party, and your leader, voted for MORE gassed and spasming Syrian kids.
Are you proud? How many more GASSED, FROTHING SYRIAN CHILDREN DO YOU WANT? Does your leader Ed "Gas the Babies" Miliband have a chart on the wall, with, like, a THREE MILLION GASSED TORMENTED SPASMING BABIES threshold where he will change his mind for the nineteenth time and finally vote in favour of stopping all the gassing?
Sean T seems to have changed his mind and joined the PB Warmongers - sad, really. Was looking forward to his "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece in the DT...
Oh well...
No, I haven't. On balance, I am still against intervention.
I am, however, viewing this, for my own amusement - at the same time - from an entirely partisan perspective - which is what Ed Miliband has been doing all along. As we have seen over the last few days, Miliband doesn't give a tinkers' wank about dead Syrian babies, he has acted solely in the interests of his own career and his own party.
Indeed I now (sincerely) believe Ed Miliband is unusually vile and nasty even by the standards of modern politicians; he really is the guy who stabbed his brother in the back.
But what fun to take an entirely Machiavellian, selfish, Ed-Milibandian perspective for once: an opinion devoid of morals and entirely about self interest.
When you do that, you can see how this debacle could be turned against Ed "yeah, let's gas the Syrian babies" Miliband, with extreme and persuasive force.
Since you are clearly so sensitive to these political insults, are you also condemning the claim made by Hammond that Miliband was giving succour to Assad?
No, of course I don't condemn that. It is completely true:
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
Your mistake (apart from your normal anti-Cameron prejudice) is that you don't seem to understand the distinction between ruling out action in principle, and sensible concerns about the practicalities and possible repercussions of action. Nor do you seem to understand the fundamental point about why the red line on chemical weapons in particular is important.
I posted at some length on this latter point earlier today, so I won't repeat myself, other than to point out that it was, contrary to your absurd accusation a few moments ago, a completely non-partisan post discussing the substance of the issue.
Yet more stupidity from Richard. As always you have such a partisan view of things that you are blind to any opinion that differs from your warped world view.
If you had been paying attention both last night and today (instead of just scanning through looking for silly arguments to pick) you would have seen that I was very keen to praise Cameron for both his decision to hold the vote and his unequivocal acceptance of the result. There are about half a dozen posts where I make that point and also say that I do not think this should or will effect his standing in the polls. As I said, you are the one wanting to play politics with this not me.
I repeat you are a hypocrite and even more than that you are a lazy hypocrite which is why you always get caught out like this.
"Difficult to take lectures about national interest seriously when Cameron couldn't even be arsed to get govt ministers to vote."
I doubt the government ministers part is going to enter into the public consciousness. Ed Miliband is going to take the weight for better or worse. It's clear from his comments after - although he may switch back - that he now wants to come across as embodying the result of the votes (i.e. no action). He wants credit; he may get it, he may not.
I agree that seems the most likely course of action - to me the entire tone from him since the vote is as though no action was what he wanted all along. If public perception continues to view that as the right course, as I think it will no matter how horrible things get (because that will encourage thinking no good could come from getting involved) then that helps him.
@majortim - Admit it, as Labour's last neo con standing, you share the same contemptuous opinion of Miliband that I do. But that's your problem and what makes it so soul-destroying for you is that we both know it will only go away after May 2015.
Yet more stupidity from Richard. As always you have such a partisan view of things that you are blind to any opinion that differs from your warped world view.
If you had been paying attention both last night and today (instead of just scanning through looking for silly arguments to pick) you would have seen that I was very keen to praise Cameron for both his decision to hold the vote and his unequivocal acceptance of the result. There are about half a dozen posts where I make that point and also say that I do not think this should or will effect his standing in the polls. As I said, you are the one wanting to play politics with this not me.
I repeat you are a hypocrite and even more than that you are a lazy hypocrite which is why you always get caught out like this.
I'm certainly not a hypocrite, and indeed I did note your praise of Cameron in that particular respect.
Curious, therefore, that you don't feel the need to dissociate yourself from Farage's disgraceful 'hungry for war' comments. Hypocritical, one might say.
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.
I have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
Your party, and your leader, voted for MORE gassed and spasming Syrian kids.
Are you proud? How many more GASSED, FROTHING SYRIAN CHILDREN DO YOU WANT? Does your leader Ed "Gas the Babies" Miliband have a chart on the wall, with, like, a THREE MILLION GASSED TORMENTED SPASMING BABIES threshold where he will change his mind for the nineteenth time and finally vote in favour of stopping all the gassing?
Sean T seems to have changed his mind and joined the PB Warmongers - sad, really. Was looking forward to his "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece in the DT...
Oh well...
No, I haven't. On balance, I am still against intervention.
I am, however, viewing this, for my own amusement - at the same time - from an entirely partisan perspective - which is what Ed Miliband has been doing all along. As we have seen over the last few days, Miliband doesn't give a tinkers' wank about dead Syrian babies, he has acted solely in the interests of his own career and his own party.
Indeed I now (sincerely) believe Ed Miliband is unusually vile and nasty even by the standards of modern politicians; he really is the guy who stabbed his brother in the back.
But what fun to take an entirely Machiavellian, selfish, Ed-Milibandian perspective for once: an opinion devoid of morals and entirely about self interest.
When you do that, you can see how this debacle could be turned against Ed "yeah, let's gas the Syrian babies" Miliband, with extreme and persuasive force.
Sean, you have paywall access, you may appreciate this story
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 have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
Ah, so the job of the LOTO is to oppose. Screw the national interest. Er, that's precisely the point many of us our making.
Play that again? That 'weak' opposition was what kept your beloved Prime Minister in his job. Because they didn't believe that the job of the LOTO was to cynically oppose on a matter of such importance and screw the national interest.
It was Cameron's job to convince the commons that action was in the national interest. He failed yesterday despite having a large majority to whip. That matters as much if not more than whatever EdM did. There's we're two motions in favour of action, neither passed.
He and Ed should have been prepared for the possibility of a NO vote. If it is so catastrophic, it is because they did not prepare for it and have gone into meltdown today. Both have culpability here.
What is undoubted is that continued partisan bickering and hyperbole solves nothing.
Imagine my surprise to find perennial haters of the Labour party on here seeking to blame Miliband for the murder of children and for providing succour to dictators. Whoever would have thought it?
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?
I say
Point 1 - Yes, in limited circumstances, I don't believe those circumstances exist at the moment.
Point 2 - No I don't believe in precision bombing and smart missiles, I'm fully aware that any action has a significant risk of escalating further.
Of course they exist. A large part of the Syrian Government forces - and those who are apparently most brutal in their campaign against rebels and civilians alike - are Hezbollah forces from Lebanon. They are controlled and supplied from Lebanon and their commanders sit in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. It is since these forces got involved that the Government forces have regained the upper hand. If you are serious about making any real difference in the Civil War then that is one place you will need to target your bombs and missiles.
So you are in effect accepting that to make any difference you will have to accept killing Lebanese civilians.
Yes - but not at the moment
So you are willing to see us kill innocent Syrian civilians but not innocent Lebanese Civilians - yet?
At what point do we move from it being acceptable only to kill Syrian civilians to being acceptable to kill Lebanese civilians as well?
I am actually not trying to be funny here, just stark.
This is what you are talking about when you talk about strikes against Assad. The only realistic consequence we can be certain of (as opposed to hopeful about) is that innocent civilians will die in these attacks.
Imagine my surprise to find perennial haters of the Labour party on here seeking to blame Miliband for the murder of children and for providing succour to dictators. Whoever would have thought it?
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?
I say
Point 1 - Yes, in limited circumstances, I don't believe those circumstances exist at the moment.
Point 2 - No I don't believe in precision bombing and smart missiles, I'm fully aware that any action has a significant risk of escalating further.
Of course they exist. A large part of the Syrian Government forces - and those who are apparently most brutal in their campaign against rebels and civilians alike - are Hezbollah forces from Lebanon. They are controlled and supplied from Lebanon and their commanders sit in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. It is since these forces got involved that the Government forces have regained the upper hand. If you are serious about making any real difference in the Civil War then that is one place you will need to target your bombs and missiles.
So you are in effect accepting that to make any difference you will have to accept killing Lebanese civilians.
Yes - but not at the moment
So you are willing to see us kill innocent Syrian civilians but not innocent Lebanese Civilians - yet?
At what point do we move from it being acceptable only to kill Syrian civilians to being acceptable to kill Lebanese civilians as well?
I am actually not trying to be funny here, just stark.
This is what you are talking about when you talk about strikes against Assad. The only realistic consequence we can be certain of (as opposed to hopeful about) is that innocent civilians will die in these attacks.
Richard, I understand you're being serious and not wishing to be partisan. apologies if I gave you that impression,
Innocent civilians will be killed, that's what happens in war, I'm under no illusions about that.
It becomes acceptable if the Syrians and the Lebanese based elements don't hand over Assad their chemical weapons after the first round of strikes
Imagine my surprise to find perennial haters of the Labour party on here seeking to blame Miliband for the murder of children and for providing succour to dictators. Whoever would have thought it?
Perennial haters of the Labour party who in the past have defended Miliband against criticism from you and others, and who, until very recently, have repeatedly stated that he seems to be honest and decent.
But when the facts change, I for one change my mind.
I, for my own part - and again for selfish personal reasons - am enjoying my reawakened lefty anti-war-ism that has lain long dormant since the run up to and aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq!
Yet more stupidity from Richard. As always you have such a partisan view of things that you are blind to any opinion that differs from your warped world view.
If you had been paying attention both last night and today (instead of just scanning through looking for silly arguments to pick) you would have seen that I was very keen to praise Cameron for both his decision to hold the vote and his unequivocal acceptance of the result. There are about half a dozen posts where I make that point and also say that I do not think this should or will effect his standing in the polls. As I said, you are the one wanting to play politics with this not me.
I repeat you are a hypocrite and even more than that you are a lazy hypocrite which is why you always get caught out like this.
I'm certainly not a hypocrite, and indeed I did note your praise of Cameron in that particular respect.
Curious, therefore, that you don't feel the need to dissociate yourself from Farage's disgraceful 'hungry for war' comments. Hypocritical, one might say.
Not in the least. It is politics, just as Hammond's comments about Miliband were politics.
Since I am generally critical of Farage on other matters I have never felt a need to defend him, unlike your blind fawning over Cameron. But in this case I see nothing wrong in his comments, any more than apparently you do in Hammond's.
You want your side to always be whiter than white and everyone else to be evil and vile. It is infantile and, as I say, hypocritical.
Imagine my surprise to find perennial haters of the Labour party on here seeking to blame Miliband for the murder of children and for providing succour to dictators. Whoever would have thought it?
Wait, Dan Hodges posted something?
No doubt he has somewhere. On here it's just the usual nonsense from those who cry foul should anyone say anything vaguely horrid about the Tories.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
For Ed Miliband this week, it was not about peace. It was not about parliamentary sovereignty, the national interest, chemical-warfare treaties or our (possibly now knackered) ‘special relationship’ with Washington.
It was certainly not about those children whose suffocated bodies were seen wrapped in white burial shrouds after the Damascus suburbs gas attack. Murdered innocents? V. low on the Miliband priority list, they’d be.
Nah. For the Labour leader this week it was, as ever, about just one thing: me, me, me. How could he turn the horrible Syria crisis to his own short-term advantage? That may sound harsh, but it is hard to see any other explanation for the Labour leader’s conduct during Thursday’s ‘war debate’ in the Commons.
Imagine my surprise to find perennial haters of the Labour party on here seeking to blame Miliband for the murder of children and for providing succour to dictators. Whoever would have thought it?
Most of them supported Blair's Iraq stupidity so it's hardly a shock.
@SeanT - Blimey, it was a very powerful piece my Anthony Lloyd, I hope the Times unpaywall that piece, it is a very compelling piece, it deserves to be seen by a wider audience
Not in the least. It is politics, just as Hammond's comments about Miliband were politics.
Wrong. Saying Miliband's actions give 'succour to Assad' is about the effect of Miliband's actions, and is also objectively true, as I demonstrated. Saying Cameron and Hague are 'hungry for war' is a personal comment on their characters and motives (it's also obviously totally barmy, but that's another matter). Totally different.
I take the view of not doing anything maybe the worst option of all.
FWIW, my experience of both politics and industry is that far too many leaders think that doing something is always better than doing nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is precisely the right thing - either because things are going well, or because they're going badly and whatever you do would make them worse.
"Something must be done! Let's kill some Syrians and then push off."
I take the view of not doing anything maybe the worst option of all.
FWIW, my experience of both politics and industry is that far too many leaders think that doing something is always better than doing nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is precisely the right thing - either because things are going well, or because they're going badly and whatever you do would make them worse.
"Something must be done! Let's kill some Syrians and then push off."
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
I take the view of not doing anything maybe the worst option of all.
FWIW, my experience of both politics and industry is that far too many leaders think that doing something is always better than doing nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is precisely the right thing - either because things are going well, or because they're going badly and whatever you do would make them worse.
"Something must be done! Let's kill some Syrians and then push off."
No.
And I agree, and others may well think as you do that sometimes doing nothing is precisely the right thing, but still come to the conclusion that it is not the case here. People don't have to believe that doing nothing is always worse than doing something to think that doing nothing is not the best option here. I don't agree with them, but it is certainly possible.
On other matters, attacks on Ed M a bit ridiculous, but whining Labourites now pretending they don't take almost every opportunity to portray tories in the same negative terms reaching a similar level. I like smug self satisfaction, I consider myself a master at it, but it's easier when I'm not as guilty as the people I'm condemning.
Whenever I think of experts, Professor Sir Roy Meadow springs to mind — the man who singlehandedly f****d up a huge number of murder trials with his bogus statistics.
Not in the least. It is politics, just as Hammond's comments about Miliband were politics.
Wrong. Saying Miliband's actions give 'succour to Assad' is about the effect of Miliband's actions, and is also objectively true, as I demonstrated. Saying Cameron and Hague are 'hungry for war' is a personal comment on their characters and motives (it's also obviously totally barmy, but that's another matter). Totally different.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side.
He's done both, surely. That is, he exposed Cameron by not supporting gov, but has also being presenting as though no action under any circumstances is what he wanted, when it patently wasn't given his amendment made provision for potential action under different circumstances
Not in the least. It is politics, just as Hammond's comments about Miliband were politics.
Wrong. Saying Miliband's actions give 'succour to Assad' is about the effect of Miliband's actions, and is also objectively true, as I demonstrated. Saying Cameron and Hague are 'hungry for war' is a personal comment on their characters and motives (it's also obviously totally barmy, but that's another matter). Totally different.
Or are you claiming the BBC made up that stuff I posted a few minutes ago?
I appreciate that it's very, very difficult for Labour supporters today. Quite how you can read John Kerry's statement and still intend to vote for Ed Miliband as PM is hard to understand; I imagine it must require some really impressive double-think.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
No, Miliband's brought it on himself, by appearing to suggest he is in favour of baby-killing, if it harms the Tory party. Which, apparently, he is.
You can't be a ruthlessly partisan, self-interested careerist (which Ed M blatantly is: cf his knifing of brother David) without occasionally suffering from this proclivity, if at other times you benefit.
Put it another way: all those lefties on here (like Roger) who admire Ed's ruthlessness have to accept there is sometimes a price to pay for this reputation.
People who have demonstrated their hatred of Miliband time and again are merely doing it one more time. I don't doubt their hatred of him and Labour. But there's little more to it than that.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
No, Miliband's brought it on himself, by appearing to suggest he is in favour of baby-killing, if it harms the Tory party. Which, apparently, he is.
You can't be a ruthlessly partisan, self-interested careerist (which Ed M blatantly is: cf his knifing of brother David) without occasionally suffering from this proclivity, if at other times you benefit.
Put it another way: all those lefties on here (like Roger) who admire Ed's ruthlessness have to accept there is sometimes a price to pay for this reputation.
Amongst right wingers the views of the Great British public is an after thought, if they think about them at all.
But then, toffs are not supposed to think what the plebs think.
Not in the least. It is politics, just as Hammond's comments about Miliband were politics.
Wrong. Saying Miliband's actions give 'succour to Assad' is about the effect of Miliband's actions, and is also objectively true, as I demonstrated. Saying Cameron and Hague are 'hungry for war' is a personal comment on their characters and motives (it's also obviously totally barmy, but that's another matter). Totally different.
The halfwits don't seem to realise that Cameron has been all over the news saying he would respect the will of the public and parliament and not intervene militarily.
Bit hard for Cammie to then try and make childish remarks about dead children and appeasing dictators after that. It will be even harder if the U.S. does attack and the carnage goes on. Which it most assuredly will.
Public opinion is not on their side and they know it. Smearing those opposing an attack is Blairite idiocy of the most toxic and counterproductive kind. The public are hugely unlikely to be very sympathetic to that approach and it will just remind them of the pathetic Iraq tactics with ever more clarity.
Or are you claiming the BBC made up that stuff I posted a few minutes ago?
I appreciate that it's very, very difficult for Labour supporters today. Quite how you can read John Kerry's statement and still intend to vote for Ed Miliband as PM is hard to understand; I imagine it must require some really impressive double-think.
I don't doubt the BBC report. I just think your blindly partisan interpretation of it and your claim that this interpretation is the objective truth is utterly ridiculous. But I also accept you believe that what you say is the objective truth, because you also believe completely and irrevocably that the Labour party is venal and incapable of any action which is not wicked. You believe what you believe. There is no point in trying to argue with you.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
SO
Please be so kind as to set out the substantive differences between Ed Miliband's strategy and that of David Cameron.
You may quote from either the Government or Opposition motions to support your case.
I don't doubt the BBC report. I just think your blindly partisan interpretation of it and your claim that this interpretation is the objective truth is utterly ridiculous. But I also accept you believe that what you say is the objective truth, because you also believe completely and irrevocably that the Labour party is venal and incapable of any action which is not wicked. You believe what you believe. There is no point in trying to argue with you.
Indeed not. If you can't accept that 'giving succour to Assad' is objectively supported by a BBC report that Assad's government is 'cock-a-hoop' at what happened, as well as by the obvious logic of the position, there is indeed no point arguing with you.
Also, I don't think the Labour Party is venal and wicked at all. Usually I think they are honourable but mistaken on many issues (New Labour being a bit of an aberration, admittedly). And certainly no other Labour leader in the fifty years or so I've been following politics has behaved quite like Miliband.
Comparing these with their May 2013 'wins' is surprising.
2 Boston and Skegness 7 Cambridgeshire North West 26 Aylesbury 32 Thanet North 34 Bognor Regis and Littlehampton 47 Worthing East and Shoreham 72 Thanet South 78 Sittingbourne and Sheppey 87 Forest of Dean 108 Great Yarmouth
vile and racist character assasination piece by Quentin Letts on Miliband in the Mail- "his word may be no straighter than the conk of his". The culmination of 72 hours of no-10 led spin, and really nasty stuff.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
No, Miliband's brought it on himself, by appearing to suggest he is in favour of baby-killing, if it harms the Tory party. Which, apparently, he is.
You can't be a ruthlessly partisan, self-interested careerist (which Ed M blatantly is: cf his knifing of brother David) without occasionally suffering from this proclivity, if at other times you benefit.
Put it another way: all those lefties on here (like Roger) who admire Ed's ruthlessness have to accept there is sometimes a price to pay for this reputation.
People who have demonstrated their hatred of Miliband time and again are merely doing it one more time. I don't doubt their hatred of him and Labour. But there's little more to it than that.
Are you proud of Miliband's politicking over this most solemn of decisions? Have you read all the accounts of what happened? He has behaved...
Oh god, why am I bothering.
I have read Tory accounts, I have read Labour accounts. Not surprisingly, they differ. I am not proud of any of our political leaders. But I think Parliament came to the right decision on Thursday.
I don't doubt the BBC report. I just think your blindly partisan interpretation of it and your claim that this interpretation is the objective truth is utterly ridiculous. But I also accept you believe that what you say is the objective truth, because you also believe completely and irrevocably that the Labour party is venal and incapable of any action which is not wicked. You believe what you believe. There is no point in trying to argue with you.
Indeed not. If you can't accept that 'giving succour to Assad' is objectively supported by a BBC report that Assad's government is 'cock-a-hoop' at what happened, as well as by the obvious logic of the position, there is indeed no point arguing with you.
Also, I don't think the Labour Party is venal and wicked at all. Usually I think they are honourable but mistaken on many issues (New Labour being a bit of an aberration, admittedly). And certainly no other Labour leader in the fifty years or so I've been following politics has behaved quite like Miliband.
But blame the messenger, as I sure you will.
No this is all down to you I'm afraid. If the attacks had gone ahead I am sure there would have been reports about the rebels - including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah celebrating the first air strikes against Assad's forces. Would you then have been happy to hear Farage or any anti-war protester talking about Cameron 'giving succour to Al Qaeda'? I suspect your hypocritical outrage would have been flying around every thread on here.
vile and racist character assasination piece by Quentin Letts on Miliband in the Mail- "his word may be no straighter than the conk of his". The culmination of 72 hours of no-10 led spin, and really nasty stuff.
Pointing out that a nose is misshapen may be petty and juvenile, but it's not racist and you do yourself no favours claiming it is.
vile and racist character assasination piece by Quentin Letts on Miliband in the Mail- "his word may be no straighter than the conk of his". The culmination of 72 hours of no-10 led spin, and really nasty stuff.
Pointing out that a nose is misshapen may be petty and juvenile, but it's not racist and you do yourself no favours claiming it is.
People will know full well what kind of stereotype is being built up there, and Letts has got plenty of form for offensive comments.
No this is all down to you I'm afraid. If the attacks had gone ahead I am sure there would have been reports about the rebels - including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah celebrating the first air strikes against Assad's forces. Would you then have been happy to hear Farage or any anti-war protester talking about Cameron 'giving succour to Al Qaeda'? I suspect your hypocritical outrage would have been flying around every thread on here.
Sauce for the goose I'm afraid.
Garbage. The goose didn't say 'Cameron's policy will give succour to Al Qaeda'. If he had, I wouldn't have complained; it's a genuine risk of the policy, and it's not a personal attack on the motives and character of Cameron. Instead, the goose said he is 'hungry for war'. Different sauce altogether, and a disgraceful personal attack on the character and motivations - not the pros/cons of the policy - of Cameron.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
SO
Please be so kind as to set out the substantive differences between Ed Miliband's strategy and that of David Cameron.
You may quote from either the Government or Opposition motions to support your case.
I have done so on a number of occasions over the last 24 hours, rather painstakingly. You'll forgive me if I don't do it again. Suffice to say, the motions were different enough that neither side could support the other.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
SO
Please be so kind as to set out the substantive differences between Ed Miliband's strategy and that of David Cameron.
You may quote from either the Government or Opposition motions to support your case.
I have done so on a number of occasions over the last 24 hours, rather painstakingly. You'll forgive me if I don't do it again. Suffice to say, the motions were different enough that neither side could support the other.
No this is all down to you I'm afraid. If the attacks had gone ahead I am sure there would have been reports about the rebels - including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah celebrating the first air strikes against Assad's forces. Would you then have been happy to hear Farage or any anti-war protester talking about Cameron 'giving succour to Al Qaeda'? I suspect your hypocritical outrage would have been flying around every thread on here.
Sauce for the goose I'm afraid.
Garbage. The goose didn't say 'Cameron's policy will give succour to Al Qaeda'. If he had, I wouldn't have complained; it's a genuine risk of the policy, and it's not a personal attack on the motives and character of Cameron. Instead, the goose said he is 'hungry for war'. Different sauce altogether, and a disgraceful personal attack on the character and motivations - not the pros/cons of the policy - of Cameron.
LOL. Like I said, hypocrite. And not a very bright one at that.
vile and racist character assasination piece by Quentin Letts on Miliband in the Mail- "his word may be no straighter than the conk of his". The culmination of 72 hours of no-10 led spin, and really nasty stuff.
Pointing out that a nose is misshapen may be petty and juvenile, but it's not racist and you do yourself no favours claiming it is.
People will know full well what kind of stereotype is being built up there, and Letts has got plenty of form for offensive comments.
Did you man the barricades over the Fagin posters?
I don't doubt the BBC report. I just think your blindly partisan interpretation of it and your claim that this interpretation is the objective truth is utterly ridiculous. But I also accept you believe that what you say is the objective truth, because you also believe completely and irrevocably that the Labour party is venal and incapable of any action which is not wicked. You believe what you believe. There is no point in trying to argue with you.
Indeed not. If you can't accept that 'giving succour to Assad' is objectively supported by a BBC report that Assad's government is 'cock-a-hoop' at what happened, as well as by the obvious logic of the position, there is indeed no point arguing with you.
Also, I don't think the Labour Party is venal and wicked at all. Usually I think they are honourable but mistaken on many issues (New Labour being a bit of an aberration, admittedly). And certainly no other Labour leader in the fifty years or so I've been following politics has behaved quite like Miliband.
But blame the messenger, as I'm sure you will.
Cameron's failure to carry the argument after recalling Parliament may well have given succour to Assad. If he had backed the Labour motion it would not have happened. There's an alternative objective truth for you.
LOL. Like I said, hypocrite. And not a very bright one at that.
Not bright? Hmmm... I don't think that particular one will fly, Richard... But I 've clearly won this little spat (or else you genuinely don't understand the distinction I was making) so I'll go to bed. G'night.
It'll be ironic if an American missile strike somehow miraculously hastens the end of the civil war. It could do via mass defections, for example.
It could but it needs to be concerted enough to leave no doubt to people that now is the time to bail and look for talks. Thats the worry, it'll be too limp wristed to do anything other than have Assad to set himself up as taking on the US as well.
The denials of involvement amongst some in the Assad regime over the chemical weapons attack is not without significance and could be an opening though the US has sought for some time for people to lead a coup. Some officials who have scattered in the evac, though, won't be going back. Others have been forced to stay, partially due to fear that they are unreliable, and take the possible strikes because they aren't trusted Question will be how many and at what level will take their chance. Same with troops, Assad has left Sunni troops, effectively under a perverse house arrest in military facilities doing static duties, in those bases which may come under attack.
vile and racist character assasination piece by Quentin Letts on Miliband in the Mail- "his word may be no straighter than the conk of his". The culmination of 72 hours of no-10 led spin, and really nasty stuff.
Er, Ed Miliband had an OPERATION to reshape his nose. So are we not allowed to mention this because, in your miniature mind, "Jews = noses"?
No he didn't. He had an operation of the inside of it for a respiratory condition, which made very little difference to his appearance.
vile and racist character assasination piece by Quentin Letts on Miliband in the Mail- "his word may be no straighter than the conk of his". The culmination of 72 hours of no-10 led spin, and really nasty stuff.
Er, Ed Miliband had an OPERATION to reshape his nose. So are we not allowed to mention this because, in your miniature mind, "Jews = noses"?
No he didn't. He had an operation of the inside of it for a respiratory condition, which made very little difference to his appearance.
So you didn't object to the Howard, Fagin, stuff, does that make you a vile racist, or just a hypocrite?
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
Nope, what he's dared to do is not agree with the strategy Cameron sought to sell yesterday, so exposing Cameron's inability to carry his own side. The only way perennial Labour haters can cope with this is to accuse Miliband, yet again (yawn), of being venal, self-serving and partisan. And now they get to throw in supporting baby killing and providing succour to dictators too. And if it makes them feel better, who am I to argue? They will believe what they want to believe regardless.
SO
Please be so kind as to set out the substantive differences between Ed Miliband's strategy and that of David Cameron.
You may quote from either the Government or Opposition motions to support your case.
I have done so on a number of occasions over the last 24 hours, rather painstakingly. You'll forgive me if I don't do it again. Suffice to say, the motions were different enough that neither side could support the other.
I understand, SO.
It has been a long day.
It has been, that is for sure. We are all good people on here, in our different ways. This is not the real world, it's an internet message board. Sometimes it takes over. That's not healthy. Here's to the weekend: a pre-season rugby game for my son, the first blackberry picking of the year and, less happily, the North London derby on Sunday. I am five days into an alcohol sabbatical. It's beginning to grate. Bona nit.
** Am I the only one having trouble posting comments ? **
Eagles, you have surprised me (and others as well I suspect) this evening.
So you're willing not to replace Trident and you're willing to condemn the USA for leaving contaminated warzones.
Meanwhile the Vietnamese and Iraqi people get to suffer the effects of Agent Orange and depleted uranium and the Syrian (and Lebanese) people are to be bombed because you don't like how some of the factions in the Syrian civil war are operating.
non sequitur about a politician I hardly remember, about whom I would have objected to such coverage had I seen it.
Lying hypocrite. Not a good reputation to be developing. Still marginally better than a straight up racist quite like this throwing around of baseless insults it's fun.
Cameron's failure to carry the argument after recalling Parliament may well have given succour to Assad. If he had backed the Labour motion it would not have happened. There's an alternative objective truth for you.
SO
In a time of war, or in the period leading up to war, the government leads a country's interaction with the international community.
Under growing practice, the government seeks the support of opposition party leaders for its position, prior to seeking a full vote in Parliament.
The consultation with other opposition parties provides a means by which the government can accommodate vital concerns and requirements of opposition parties so that when a motion is put to vote it secures the widest possible cross-party support.
All this process was followed by Cameron and the government motion was redrafted on a number of occasions to accommodate Ed Miliband's requirements.
Subsequently, and without any substantive differences between the government's position and that of the opposition, Miliband introduces a near-identical opposition motion, tables it as an amendment, and, threatens not to vote for the government's motion if the opposition amendment fails.
It is the job of the government to propose a motion for the house to vote on. The government holds consultations with the opposition parties expressly for the purpose of ensuring such motion is acceptable to the opposition.
So what does Miliband do? Introduce a near-identical motion as an amendment, see it defeated, then vote against the government motion and, when that is defeated, claim the government should have voted for the opposition.
That is like turning up to an away football game and refusing to go onto the pitch unless the home team uses the away teams ball.
Have a thought for Cameron having to explain what happened to the Queen or to President Obama or Hollande or Merkel. No wonder Cameron has ruled out any second bite of the cherry.
The blame for the UK's failure to act responsibly lies firmly with Miliband and Miliband alone.
No wonder his portrait is on the walls of Bashar Al-Assad's palaces garlanded with flowers.
Listen to yourselves. You're only concerned about who's going to come out of this politically the winner. The British public don't trust any of you on this. I'm glad Paddy Ashdown feels ashamed and depressed, I feel the same way about our politicians. 12 years of the War On Terror have jaded us too.
"What is clear is that he still stands head and shoulders above any Tory contender for his job. And as for the Labour alternative… enough said."
Well, well, well. The Mail not just supporting the Conservatives but supporting Cameron big time. For all the things that they don't like about him they are going to end up backing him 110% at the GE and they are going to be hand in hand with him on his message that will be rammed home day after day after day - ie Labour Tax Bombshell + Miliband = Kinnock.
Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has all been said before.
I am deeply unconvinced by "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."
This assumes no British intervention, which for now seems reasonable. But in practice it seems likely that the USA and France are going to intervene regardless, in some form, with or without the UK. If the Syrian government then does something appalling after that, then people are not going to be saying "such a shame the British didn't hadn't joined in, because without their help the USA and France were unable to sway the situation."
The doves might say that it shows intervention is pointless and ineffective, so it's just as well we didn't take part. Pragmatists might say that it shows that the intervention should have been performed in a more effective way - airstrikes alone may not have the desired effect. The hawks might even say that it shows the world should have got a grip on the situation in Syria much sooner, a year or so ago, and our earlier lack of intervention has proven costly. But whichever way people look at hypothetical future Assad atrocities, it would be from the perspective of the failure of the "Coalition of the Non-British and Willing", the consequence of British inaction in terms of international standing will be a secondary question, and the moral culpability of Ed Miliband will be very far from centre stage.
Well Miliband didn't do his job as LotO, he went yeah but no, on a cross party consensus on Syria. After Cameron met his demands he went yeah, but no. Then today Miliband went no, but yeah you must do something to the Government. Blair and his Government destroy the electorate's trust when it came to any Government taking us to war, Miliband destroy our trust in even believing anything they say when they are in Opposition. I await the next time at PMQ's that Miliband attempts to try to suggest that this Government would have his support if they did the right thing, I think Cameron will have a pithy response to that lie ready.
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 have no bones with Milliband or Cameron on this. The LotO has a job to do. He did it. There was significant public opposition to the planned action. It won the day. The PM could have won the vote.
Comments
The Blair govt was not helped by weak opposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Basically they get round it by vaguely supporting Argentina but doing nothing to practically help them
And the consequences of that will be your responsibility.
And how fair of you - you condemn the USA but you want to bomb Syria.
Do you really give a toss about WMDs as you say ? Or do you only give a toss about WMDs as long as its not your side that's using them ?
Also, sentences are typically separated with a space -- it makes your comments awkward to read.
'And if facts emerge, have another vote.'
Translation.
Ed's overplayed his hand and will need help out of the proverbial. .
edit: How it plays out on balance will depend on which ones the media choose to stress.
Needless to say It did not work and repeating that kind of counterproductive stupidity when the public are clearly against military intervention is cretinous idiocy.
Not least because when that occured Iraq was then America’s ally and when it used chemical weapons we did not assault Baghdad.
And not least because it was don with US approval.
Since you are clearly so sensitive to these political insults, are you also condemning the claim made by Hammond that Miliband was giving succour to Assad?
Or are you just as much a hypocrite on this matter as you are on everything else?
Oh well...
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?
I say
Point 1 - Yes, in limited circumstances, I don't believe those circumstances exist at the moment.
Point 2 - No I don't believe in precision bombing and smart missiles, I'm fully aware that any action has a significant risk of escalating further.
No problem about the space.
Play that again? That 'weak' opposition was what kept your beloved Prime Minister in his job. Because they didn't believe that the job of the LOTO was to cynically oppose on a matter of such importance and screw the national interest.
1441: Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor says: "I've spoken to some of the people on the inside of the regime here in Syria who are cock-a-hoop about Britain's decision not to go ahead with joining in an American-led operation against the Assad regime. They believe it counts as a victory for them."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23896617
Your mistake (apart from your normal anti-Cameron prejudice) is that you don't seem to understand the distinction between ruling out action in principle, and sensible concerns about the practicalities and possible repercussions of action. Nor do you seem to understand the fundamental point about why the red line on chemical weapons in particular is important.
I posted at some length on this latter point earlier today, so I won't repeat myself, other than to point out that it was, contrary to your absurd accusation a few moments ago, a completely non-partisan post discussing the substance of the issue.
What a contrast to the Labour leader, who repaid Mr Cameron’s straight-dealing with a display of wriggling political opportunism that should fill the nation with distaste.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407557/A-humbled-PM-emerge-stronger.html#ixzz2dUilEY8W
*Well they don't, but we can read between the lines
So you are in effect accepting that to make any difference you will have to accept killing Lebanese civilians.
I doubt the government ministers part is going to enter into the public consciousness. Ed Miliband is going to take the weight for better or worse. It's clear from his comments after - although he may switch back - that he now wants to come across as embodying the result of the votes (i.e. no action). He wants credit; he may get it, he may not.
UKIP share of the vote in 2010 by constituency, ranked by percentage share:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=drive_web#gid=0
If you had been paying attention both last night and today (instead of just scanning through looking for silly arguments to pick) you would have seen that I was very keen to praise Cameron for both his decision to hold the vote and his unequivocal acceptance of the result. There are about half a dozen posts where I make that point and also say that I do not think this should or will effect his standing in the polls. As I said, you are the one wanting to play politics with this not me.
I repeat you are a hypocrite and even more than that you are a lazy hypocrite which is why you always get caught out like this.
NIght all.
Curious, therefore, that you don't feel the need to dissociate yourself from Farage's disgraceful 'hungry for war' comments. Hypocritical, one might say.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3856890.ece
He and Ed should have been prepared for the possibility of a NO vote. If it is so catastrophic, it is because they did not prepare for it and have gone into meltdown today. Both have culpability here.
What is undoubted is that continued partisan bickering and hyperbole solves nothing.
At what point do we move from it being acceptable only to kill Syrian civilians to being acceptable to kill Lebanese civilians as well?
I am actually not trying to be funny here, just stark.
This is what you are talking about when you talk about strikes against Assad. The only realistic consequence we can be certain of (as opposed to hopeful about) is that innocent civilians will die in these attacks.
Innocent civilians will be killed, that's what happens in war, I'm under no illusions about that.
It becomes acceptable if the Syrians and the Lebanese based elements don't hand over Assad their chemical weapons after the first round of strikes
But when the facts change, I for one change my mind.
I take your point!
I, for my own part - and again for selfish personal reasons - am enjoying my reawakened lefty anti-war-ism that has lain long dormant since the run up to and aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq!
Since I am generally critical of Farage on other matters I have never felt a need to defend him, unlike your blind fawning over Cameron. But in this case I see nothing wrong in his comments, any more than apparently you do in Hammond's.
You want your side to always be whiter than white and everyone else to be evil and vile. It is infantile and, as I say, hypocritical.
He's brought that on himself by appearing to suggest that he was responsible for the no-vote and should be given credit for Britain not intervening in Syria. As I've said, this makes a change to two days ago when his position was that more evidence was needed. He's had pleanty of opportunities to say that he'd support a similar motion of the UN report (specifically) or something broader came out, say mid-week. He hasn't, so the vitriol attaches to him from non-intervention rather than intervention.
It was certainly not about those children whose suffocated bodies were seen wrapped in white burial shrouds after the Damascus suburbs gas attack. Murdered innocents? V. low on the Miliband priority list, they’d be.
Nah. For the Labour leader this week it was, as ever, about just one thing: me, me, me. How could he turn the horrible Syria crisis to his own short-term advantage? That may sound harsh, but it is hard to see any other explanation for the Labour leader’s conduct during Thursday’s ‘war debate’ in the Commons.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407488/Ed-Miliband-slippery-hypocrite-trust-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html#ixzz2dUo0gCoD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The more unstable of them seem to be drunk.
http://bit.ly/17p6zjD
"Something must be done! Let's kill some Syrians and then push off."
No.
In the Arab world, support also fall in the same manner.
Morsi supported the rebels strongly. The new government supports Assad.
Turkey with its Islamist governemnt supports the rebels. So does Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.
Iraq supports the Assad regime.
Al-Qaeda are with the rebels.
Slight problem — they already received 3.6% in 2010 in the seats they contested, (which was 558 out of 650).
On other matters, attacks on Ed M a bit ridiculous, but whining Labourites now pretending they don't take almost every opportunity to portray tories in the same negative terms reaching a similar level. I like smug self satisfaction, I consider myself a master at it, but it's easier when I'm not as guilty as the people I'm condemning.
Or are you claiming the BBC made up that stuff I posted a few minutes ago?
I appreciate that it's very, very difficult for Labour supporters today. Quite how you can read John Kerry's statement and still intend to vote for Ed Miliband as PM is hard to understand; I imagine it must require some really impressive double-think.
But then, toffs are not supposed to think what the plebs think.
The halfwits don't seem to realise that Cameron has been all over the news saying he would respect the will of the public and parliament and not intervene militarily.
Bit hard for Cammie to then try and make childish remarks about dead children and appeasing dictators after that. It will be even harder if the U.S. does attack and the carnage goes on. Which it most assuredly will.
Public opinion is not on their side and they know it. Smearing those opposing an attack is Blairite idiocy of the most toxic and counterproductive kind. The public are hugely unlikely to be very sympathetic to that approach and it will just remind them of the pathetic Iraq tactics with ever more clarity.
Please be so kind as to set out the substantive differences between Ed Miliband's strategy and that of David Cameron.
You may quote from either the Government or Opposition motions to support your case.
Also, I don't think the Labour Party is venal and wicked at all. Usually I think they are honourable but mistaken on many issues (New Labour being a bit of an aberration, admittedly). And certainly no other Labour leader in the fifty years or so I've been following politics has behaved quite like Miliband.
But blame the messenger, as I'm sure you will.
2 Boston and Skegness
7 Cambridgeshire North West
26 Aylesbury
32 Thanet North
34 Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
47 Worthing East and Shoreham
72 Thanet South
78 Sittingbourne and Sheppey
87 Forest of Dean
108 Great Yarmouth
http://survation.com/2013/05/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
The 2014 locals are going to be interesting!
Sauce for the goose I'm afraid.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDgyLXhteG1UZWpNQ1BQOGt0amIweEE#gid=0
It has been a long day.
The denials of involvement amongst some in the Assad regime over the chemical weapons attack is not without significance and could be an opening though the US has sought for some time for people to lead a coup. Some officials who have scattered in the evac, though, won't be going back. Others have been forced to stay, partially due to fear that they are unreliable, and take the possible strikes because they aren't trusted Question will be how many and at what level will take their chance. Same with troops, Assad has left Sunni troops, effectively under a perverse house arrest in military facilities doing static duties, in those bases which may come under attack.
Eagles, you have surprised me (and others as well I suspect) this evening.
So you're willing not to replace Trident and you're willing to condemn the USA for leaving contaminated warzones.
Meanwhile the Vietnamese and Iraqi people get to suffer the effects of Agent Orange and depleted uranium and the Syrian (and Lebanese) people are to be bombed because you don't like how some of the factions in the Syrian civil war are operating.
Looks like one rule for us and one rule for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the French public are even more anti the idea of missile strikes than their British counterparts.
But the warmongers now have outdone that.
They don't even have an entry strategy.
Apart from Eagles that is, I wonder if he got that though from the wise woman of Putney.
In a time of war, or in the period leading up to war, the government leads a country's interaction with the international community.
Under growing practice, the government seeks the support of opposition party leaders for its position, prior to seeking a full vote in Parliament.
The consultation with other opposition parties provides a means by which the government can accommodate vital concerns and requirements of opposition parties so that when a motion is put to vote it secures the widest possible cross-party support.
All this process was followed by Cameron and the government motion was redrafted on a number of occasions to accommodate Ed Miliband's requirements.
Subsequently, and without any substantive differences between the government's position and that of the opposition, Miliband introduces a near-identical opposition motion, tables it as an amendment, and, threatens not to vote for the government's motion if the opposition amendment fails.
It is the job of the government to propose a motion for the house to vote on. The government holds consultations with the opposition parties expressly for the purpose of ensuring such motion is acceptable to the opposition.
So what does Miliband do? Introduce a near-identical motion as an amendment, see it defeated, then vote against the government motion and, when that is defeated, claim the government should have voted for the opposition.
That is like turning up to an away football game and refusing to go onto the pitch unless the home team uses the away teams ball.
Have a thought for Cameron having to explain what happened to the Queen or to President Obama or Hollande or Merkel. No wonder Cameron has ruled out any second bite of the cherry.
The blame for the UK's failure to act responsibly lies firmly with Miliband and Miliband alone.
No wonder his portrait is on the walls of Bashar Al-Assad's palaces garlanded with flowers.
"What is clear is that he still stands head and shoulders above any Tory contender for his job. And as for the Labour alternative… enough said."
Well, well, well. The Mail not just supporting the Conservatives but supporting Cameron big time. For all the things that they don't like about him they are going to end up backing him 110% at the GE and they are going to be hand in hand with him on his message that will be rammed home day after day after day - ie Labour Tax Bombshell + Miliband = Kinnock.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407557/Syria-vote-A-humbled-PM-emerge-stronger.html#ixzz2dV7t8Wzx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I am deeply unconvinced by "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."
This assumes no British intervention, which for now seems reasonable. But in practice it seems likely that the USA and France are going to intervene regardless, in some form, with or without the UK. If the Syrian government then does something appalling after that, then people are not going to be saying "such a shame the British didn't hadn't joined in, because without their help the USA and France were unable to sway the situation."
The doves might say that it shows intervention is pointless and ineffective, so it's just as well we didn't take part. Pragmatists might say that it shows that the intervention should have been performed in a more effective way - airstrikes alone may not have the desired effect. The hawks might even say that it shows the world should have got a grip on the situation in Syria much sooner, a year or so ago, and our earlier lack of intervention has proven costly. But whichever way people look at hypothetical future Assad atrocities, it would be from the perspective of the failure of the "Coalition of the Non-British and Willing", the consequence of British inaction in terms of international standing will be a secondary question, and the moral culpability of Ed Miliband will be very far from centre stage.