Downing Street bent over backwards to accommodate all of Miliband's "sensitivities". The government motion was repeatedly revised to include his requirements.
Yes, we heard a hell of a lot last week about PM Miliband - how Dave was scrambling around making phone calls, desperate to accommodate the mighty Ed's cast iron demands. Now we're back to arrogant Dave who just doesn't listen. Words fail me.
I see The Times has pretty much the same version of the Downing Street clusterf*** that the Telegraph does.
"Despite the huffing from Downing Street, many Tory MPs are amazed that there was not more sensitivity to Labour's position, and care taken to ensure Mr Miliband - a leader defined by his opposition to Iraq - was onside. Yet again the tone was wrong."
Page 6 of today's Times under the headline "Alarm bells were ignored as No 10 raced headlong to an historic defeat"
Downing Street bent over backwards to accommodate all of Miliband's "sensitivities". The government motion was repeatedly revised to include his requirements.
But Miliband dithered his way to disaster.
At least the country has now been warned.
Put Miliband in office and the 21st century Nero will fiddle as London burns.
It's no good , Avery. This has been a monumental disaster for Cameron and Hague. When the dust has settled Hague will have to be despatched.
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
If it emerges that the rebels did the gassing,will Obama bomb the rebels?
That is like asking whether Clinton should have bombed Japan in response to the sarin attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995.
Avery, you do know that there's an actual civil war going on in Syria where both sides hold territory, don't you? It's not just a few thousand nutjobs with some buildings near Mount Fuji.
If the US were serious about the justification for this, bombing the rebels is exactly what they'd do if it turned out the rebels were responsible. Obviously they wouldn't do that, because it's not mainly about chemical weapons.
Artful
I am opposed to military action in Syria which does not form part of a worked strategy to achieve a negotiated settlement to the civil war.
On the issue of chemical weapons use, I would much prefer Obama to seek a UNSC resolution requiring Syria to agree to cease using chemical weapons immediately and to decommission its chemical weapons under UN (or even Russian) supervision within a reasonable time frame.
If the UNSC won't co-operate then I would be satisfied with a substitute multi-lateral ultimatum from a coalition of willing western powers.
If Syria does not comply then I would be in favour of a more substantial military intervention (but still restricted to missile attacks and bombing) until compliance or defeat was achieved.
But more than any of the above, I am opposed to tim, Roger, Southam, SMukesh and the burly one.
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
You can imagine he'd have been on the fence on this one. I don't suppose his family would have been impressed if he'd ditched the wedding to scoot back to parliament and abstain...
Last night I posted that the one discordant not note that didn't fit the Tomahawk missile strike only scenario that everyone expects was the nature and disposition of US forces. Certainly the US is either leaving a lot of 'just in case', many times more resource than the reported strike would require itself.
Defensive counter retaliation duties aside, maybe they just want to keep the margins fat or maybe for the strike to be effective it has to be more extensive than all the talk for a few missiles.
TUD ..Pay Russia a visit and ask a few folk outside of Moscow if it is still a Socialist State. The 5 stars in the centre of town are just the same as when Kruschev was around, and the peasants could'nt afford to go in then either
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
Yes, so? I would think that's a fairly common view, and a journey that has been travelled by many Labour and Conservative supporters.
But Syria is very different to Iraq.
Stewart has written an interesting blog on the situation in Syria; he knows that part of the world intimately. I don't agree with some of it, but it's a useful addition to the debate:
I am opposed to military action in Syria which does not form part of a worked strategy to achieve a negotiated settlement to the civil war.
On the issue of chemical weapons use, I would much prefer Obama to seek a UNSC resolution requiring Syria to agree to cease using chemical weapons immediately and to decommission its chemical weapons under UN (or even Russian) supervision within a reasonable time frame.
If the UNSC won't co-operate then I would be satisfied with a substitute multi-lateral ultimatum from a coalition of willing western powers.
If Syria does not comply then I would be in favour of a more substantial military intervention (but still restricted to missile attacks and bombing) until compliance or defeat was achieved.
But more than any of the above, I am opposed to tim, Roger, Southam, SMukesh and the burly one.
Leaving aside the last paragraph, that seems like a sensible non-violent solution if it can be made to work. And that conditional will be the problem: it may not work.
Some potential problems: 1) Assad does not want to play ball at all. In which case we try to persuade him as you mention. 2) Assad obfuscates the process and plays for time until the war is over. 3) The practical issues of getting suitable foreign teams into the areas the chemical weapons are, along with their equipment, and ensuring their safety in an active war zone. 4) How confident can we be that he has handed over all his special weapons for destruction? How much knowledge do we have of facilities, amounts, types and delivery mechanisms? 5) It assumes Assad has full control of such weapons. 6) It does nothing about any chemical weapons that the rebels may have.
Basically it'll have all the problem the Iraqi weapons inspectors had, with the added complication of having to work in an active warzone.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted. I wonder what our diplomatic channels with Assad currently are?
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
Yes, so? I would think that's a fairly common view, and a journey that has been travelled by many Labour and Conservative supporters.
But Syria is very different to Iraq.
Stewart has written an interesting blog on the situation in Syria; he knows that part of the world intimately. I don't agree with some of it, but it's a useful addition to the debate:
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
Yes, so? I would think that's a fairly common view, and a journey that has been travelled by many Labour and Conservative supporters.
But Syria is very different to Iraq.
Stewart has written an interesting blog on the situation in Syria; he knows that part of the world intimately. I don't agree with some of it, but it's a useful addition to the debate:
Is it true there's a lot in common (eg. social attitudes) between the right-wing Tory "Turnip Taliban" and their middle-east namesakes? Is that why they are so eager for Syria to fall to AQ and its allies?
Last night I posted that the one discordant not note that didn't fit the Tomahawk missile strike only scenario that everyone expects was the nature and disposition of US forces. Certainly the US is either leaving a lot of 'just in case', many times more resource than the reported strike would require itself.
Defensive counter retaliation duties aside, maybe they just want to keep the margins fat or maybe for the strike to be effective it has to be more extensive than all the talk for a few missiles.
And it does.
The US needs more than just counter retaliation capabilities. It needs counter escalation force to deter, say, the Russians and Iranians from getting trigger happy.
But you may have meant this by "counter retaliation".
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
Yes, so? I would think that's a fairly common view, and a journey that has been travelled by many Labour and Conservative supporters.
But Syria is very different to Iraq.
Stewart has written an interesting blog on the situation in Syria; he knows that part of the world intimately. I don't agree with some of it, but it's a useful addition to the debate:
A well reasoned article by Rory with which I am in broad agreement.
The key bit of Rory's article:
[Syria] desperately needs a political settlement between the more moderate parts of the regime and the more moderate parts of the opposition, to balance the very different components of Syrian society. But that would require, not just extraordinary political imagination, but the active support of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia.
Last night I posted that the one discordant not note that didn't fit the Tomahawk missile strike only scenario that everyone expects was the nature and disposition of US forces. Certainly the US is either leaving a lot of 'just in case', many times more resource than the reported strike would require itself.
Defensive counter retaliation duties aside, maybe they just want to keep the margins fat or maybe for the strike to be effective it has to be more extensive than all the talk for a few missiles.
And it does.
The US seems to be keeping 2 carrier battlegroups in the 5th fleet AOR (middle east). Syria is not the only potential issue. I'm convinced the US will also target the iranian revolutionary guard in syria which will lead to various attempts at reprisal.
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
Yes, so?
So what time was this wedding and what time was the vote, and when did John Major have his wisdom teeth removed?
From your link: "While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake."
Yes, so?
So what time was this wedding and what time was the vote, and when did John Major have his wisdom teeth removed?
Good questions. I note he does not actually state how he would have voted.
Having said that: I can think of few things I would've called more personally important than this vote: my own wedding and those of my siblings are one such thing.
Leaving aside the last paragraph, that seems like a sensible non-violent solution if it can be made to work. And that conditional will be the problem: it may not work.
Some potential problems: 1) Assad does not want to play ball at all. In which case we try to persuade him as you mention. 2) Assad obfuscates the process and plays for time until the war is over. 3) The practical issues of getting suitable foreign teams into the areas the chemical weapons are, along with their equipment, and ensuring their safety in an active war zone. 4) How confident can we be that he has handed over all his special weapons for destruction? How much knowledge do we have of facilities, amounts, types and delivery mechanisms? 5) It assumes Assad has full control of such weapons. 6) It does nothing about any chemical weapons that the rebels may have.
Basically it'll have all the problem the Iraqi weapons inspectors had, with the added complication of having to work in an active warzone.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted. I wonder what our diplomatic channels with Assad currently are?
Josias
It is wrong to assume that Russia is opposing all attempts by the western powers to resolve the Syrian Civil War.
Russia has co-operated by persuading and assisting the Assad regime reduce its chemical weapons facilities from five locations to two more easily guarded and safer locations. Russia has also held back from delivering upgraded weapons and military hardware.
So all sides are trying to de-escalate the war and to diminish the risk of chemical weapons falling into the the wrong hands and of leaking outside the country and warzone to become used in international terrorism.
Assad may well be prepared, in exchange for being bombed by the US, for Russia to 'assist' his regime decommission chemical weapons.
My fear is that Obama is solely interested in a 'punish and deter' strike which gets him off the hook of Assad crossing his 'red line' rather than pursuing a more complex strategy aimed at a negotiated solution.
To be fair to Obama though, Putin is not prepared to go the extra distance which would accelerate a negotiated settlement.
Obama may feel that the whole issue needs the shock of a military strike to release the diplomacy deadlock.
Er! Where was Chief Whip George Young and the nine others who didn't bother to turn up, plus the ministers too busy being in a meeting to hear the bell?
DC was so busy trying to be TB ;-) or more likely, he was under a time constraint where the intel had a live target to be "accidently" hit on Friday, to think about keeping his back benchers in line. Can't think of any other reasons for the rush to get the go ahead before the normal re-opening of the Commons on Monday.
Of course he couldn't announce that reason to parliament for obvious reason. Too many loose mouths.
I really can't believe that DC would have been stupid enough to make such a monumental omnishambles without a very good reason, believing that he could get the go ahead. I did watch the results of the votes on the box and I thought that the opposition front bench was surprised that the government amendment failed.
I see the Labour line is now 'we're in favour of intervention but it's the government whips' fault for cocking it up'. Sorry but that's not good enough. Dave bent over backwards - practically allowing Ed to draft the government proposal - in order to unite the House under the banner of consensus. Instead Ed went for his 'played a blinder' headlines. Well, he didn't get them and the focus is now on Labour's moral responsibility. Good.
Er! Where was Chief Whip George Young and the nine others who didn't bother to turn up, plus the ministers too busy being in a meeting to hear the bell?
Apparently some of the missing ministers had agreements with some of the Labour counterparts that neither of them would show in the house, thus negating the effect of them missing the vote.
@DPJHodges: Rory Stewart MP, Syria. "The reason I did not vote yesterday was that I was at my sister’s wedding in North West Devon". Unbelievable.
Etonians and Baronets playing at being in Govt.
You shouldn't have to skip your sister's wedding to vote on something. If the Commons are too stuck in their ways to let MPs vote online they should at least be able to sort out some kind of pairing arrangement for times like this.
They do -- they arrange with someone who is going to vote No, but is also going to be away from the chamber. I'm pretty sure that is a common practice.
Comments
"Roger , you have your finger on the French pulse , how long are they going to put up with this yanky running lap dog poodle , Hollande ?"
If it wasn't that the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys hadn't put capital gains up to 28% I'd be half way to Moscow by now.
I am opposed to military action in Syria which does not form part of a worked strategy to achieve a negotiated settlement to the civil war.
On the issue of chemical weapons use, I would much prefer Obama to seek a UNSC resolution requiring Syria to agree to cease using chemical weapons immediately and to decommission its chemical weapons under UN (or even Russian) supervision within a reasonable time frame.
If the UNSC won't co-operate then I would be satisfied with a substitute multi-lateral ultimatum from a coalition of willing western powers.
If Syria does not comply then I would be in favour of a more substantial military intervention (but still restricted to missile attacks and bombing) until compliance or defeat was achieved.
But more than any of the above, I am opposed to tim, Roger, Southam, SMukesh and the burly one.
Last night I posted that the one discordant not note that didn't fit the Tomahawk missile strike only scenario that everyone expects was the nature and disposition of US forces. Certainly the US is either leaving a lot of 'just in case', many times more resource than the reported strike would require itself.
Defensive counter retaliation duties aside, maybe they just want to keep the margins fat or maybe for the strike to be effective it has to be more extensive than all the talk for a few missiles.
And it does.
The 5 stars in the centre of town are just the same as when Kruschev was around, and the peasants could'nt afford to go in then either
But Syria is very different to Iraq.
Stewart has written an interesting blog on the situation in Syria; he knows that part of the world intimately. I don't agree with some of it, but it's a useful addition to the debate:
http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/syria/
Some potential problems:
1) Assad does not want to play ball at all. In which case we try to persuade him as you mention.
2) Assad obfuscates the process and plays for time until the war is over.
3) The practical issues of getting suitable foreign teams into the areas the chemical weapons are, along with their equipment, and ensuring their safety in an active war zone.
4) How confident can we be that he has handed over all his special weapons for destruction? How much knowledge do we have of facilities, amounts, types and delivery mechanisms?
5) It assumes Assad has full control of such weapons.
6) It does nothing about any chemical weapons that the rebels may have.
Basically it'll have all the problem the Iraqi weapons inspectors had, with the added complication of having to work in an active warzone.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted. I wonder what our diplomatic channels with Assad currently are?
But you may have meant this by "counter retaliation".
[Syria] desperately needs a political settlement between the more moderate parts of the regime and the more moderate parts of the opposition, to balance the very different components of Syrian society. But that would require, not just extraordinary political imagination, but the active support of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia.
Having said that: I can think of few things I would've called more personally important than this vote: my own wedding and those of my siblings are one such thing.
It is wrong to assume that Russia is opposing all attempts by the western powers to resolve the Syrian Civil War.
Russia has co-operated by persuading and assisting the Assad regime reduce its chemical weapons facilities from five locations to two more easily guarded and safer locations. Russia has also held back from delivering upgraded weapons and military hardware.
So all sides are trying to de-escalate the war and to diminish the risk of chemical weapons falling into the the wrong hands and of leaking outside the country and warzone to become used in international terrorism.
Assad may well be prepared, in exchange for being bombed by the US, for Russia to 'assist' his regime decommission chemical weapons.
My fear is that Obama is solely interested in a 'punish and deter' strike which gets him off the hook of Assad crossing his 'red line' rather than pursuing a more complex strategy aimed at a negotiated solution.
To be fair to Obama though, Putin is not prepared to go the extra distance which would accelerate a negotiated settlement.
Obama may feel that the whole issue needs the shock of a military strike to release the diplomacy deadlock.
DC was so busy trying to be TB ;-) or more likely, he was under a time constraint where the intel had a live target to be "accidently" hit on Friday, to think about keeping his back benchers in line. Can't think of any other reasons for the rush to get the go ahead before the normal re-opening of the Commons on Monday.
Of course he couldn't announce that reason to parliament for obvious reason. Too many loose mouths.
I really can't believe that DC would have been stupid enough to make such a monumental omnishambles without a very good reason, believing that he could get the go ahead. I did watch the results of the votes on the box and I thought that the opposition front bench was surprised that the government amendment failed.
'I see the Labour line is now 'we're in favour of intervention but it's the government whips' fault for cocking it up'.
A bit late for the weasel now,he chose to play party politics.