He makes some sound points about why the Parliamentary defeat might not be as bad for David Cameron or as good for Ed Miliband as it seemed at first. But he makes two major errors.
First, he suggests that the Parliamentary vote has made no difference to what will happen in Syria. It seems very doubtful whether Barack Obama would have conceded a vote to Congress if Britain had not voted against it - and there has to be a fair chance that he too will lose that vote.
Secondly, he suggests that "the Lib Dem leader had to stand on its head his definition of Iraq as an "illegal war": that at least had some basis in UN resolutions, but the Government's position then and now rested on the Attorney General's advice". The two cases are not remotely comparable. The case for going into Syria was based on a humanitarian ground. While the scope of this ground, like so much of international law, is open to debate, Britain's line is consistent with the line it used in Kosovo. The Lib Dems supported intervention in Kosovo, so Nick Clegg is being entirely consistent with his party's past views.
He makes some sound points about why the Parliamentary defeat might not be as bad for David Cameron or as good for Ed Miliband as it seemed at first. But he makes two major errors.
First, he suggests that the Parliamentary vote has made no difference to what will happen in Syria. It seems very doubtful whether Barack Obama would have conceded a vote to Congress if Britain had not voted against it - and there has to be a fair chance that he too will lose that vote.
Secondly, he suggests that "the Lib Dem leader had to stand on its head his definition of Iraq as an "illegal war": that at least had some basis in UN resolutions, but the Government's position then and now rested on the Attorney General's advice". The two cases are not remotely comparable. The case for going into Syria was based on a humanitarian ground. While the scope of this ground, like so much of international law, is open to debate, Britain's line is consistent with the line it used in Kosovo. The Lib Dems supported intervention in Kosovo, so Nick Clegg is being entirely consistent with his party's past views.
John Rentoul has a very specific agenda that is all about Tony Blair being the finest statesman this country has ever produced. What he writes must always be read in that context.
I dont want to lose my reputation for being the worst tipster on here but the enormous +6 in Labour's fortunes was predicted by me after lunch and before the evening vote.
I said it would make as big a difference to the polling as Osborne's budget. I simply had lunch with four non political friends from advertising who were more aghast at the Governments proposed action than at anything since before the election.
The point to learn is that Mike has gathererd in this community of political anoraks a very skewed sample. Tories were being booed on 'Any Questions'. Incoherent Dianne Abbott was being cheered. People were talking about it in cafe's and bars. People were angry. Yet none of the blue notes on here saw it.
Cameron and co live in a bubble. They didn't see anything either. My big fear was that Miliband might live in it too.
That might be worthwhile if there was any possibility they'd actually do it, but everybody knows they won't. They wouldn't retaliate on against the Syrian rebels if it turned out to be them, or against the Israelis, or against themselves if they ever have their backs to the wall. The proposal is always to set up a new rule of law, starting now, ignoring the past, that's going to be effective from now on. It lasts until it's in the interests of the US to break it.
Why do they do this? Because their the stated concern, which is always humanitarian, is designed to be more popular than the real main concern, which is geo-political.
I have a plan, which I've mentioned here, which would be vastly more effective in helping civilians, far more cost effective per person helped, and far less likely to backfire. Developed countries should accept refugees. The fact that they won't shows that their concern is not primarily humanitarian.
Disagree with you on all of that, and especially your plan. The refugee 'solution' you espouse does nothing to solve the problem. Why should a state, through means of the use of chemical and other terror weapons, steal property and land from its citizens, without lawful basis, making them non-members of the state?
In other words, you are proposing that we turn a blind eye whilst Assad is allowed to ethnically cleanse Syria. Indeed, that we should aid him by settling the resultant refugees. And if he does that, how long before Iran does it? Iraq? Lebanon?
It would make anything Israel does look positively modest (and that is a much more complex situation historically, with Jews having been forced out of neighbouring countries for decades before 1948).
Refugees should be allowed into neighbouring countries - Turkey in particular needs commending for their actions in this regard - and helped. However the aim should always be for them to be able to return to their rightful homes once the conflict is over.
It would be a hideous precedent that punishes the innocent, whilst leaving the barbarous Assad in power.
Although I'm firmly against intervention is Syria by our armed forces, being the wrong war at the wrong time, I still feel a pang of remorse that the the cuts our forces has had to suffer at the hands of the tories, should have brought us so low: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Comments
More popcorn needed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/david-camerons-unlikely-victory-from-defeat-8792877.html
He makes some sound points about why the Parliamentary defeat might not be as bad for David Cameron or as good for Ed Miliband as it seemed at first. But he makes two major errors.
First, he suggests that the Parliamentary vote has made no difference to what will happen in Syria. It seems very doubtful whether Barack Obama would have conceded a vote to Congress if Britain had not voted against it - and there has to be a fair chance that he too will lose that vote.
Secondly, he suggests that "the Lib Dem leader had to stand on its head his definition of Iraq as an "illegal war": that at least had some basis in UN resolutions, but the Government's position then and now rested on the Attorney General's advice". The two cases are not remotely comparable. The case for going into Syria was based on a humanitarian ground. While the scope of this ground, like so much of international law, is open to debate, Britain's line is consistent with the line it used in Kosovo. The Lib Dems supported intervention in Kosovo, so Nick Clegg is being entirely consistent with his party's past views.
I said it would make as big a difference to the polling as Osborne's budget. I simply had lunch with four non political friends from advertising who were more aghast at the Governments proposed action than at anything since before the election.
The point to learn is that Mike has gathererd in this community of political anoraks a very skewed sample. Tories were being booed on 'Any Questions'. Incoherent Dianne Abbott was being cheered. People were talking about it in cafe's and bars. People were angry. Yet none of the blue notes on here saw it.
Cameron and co live in a bubble. They didn't see anything either. My big fear was that Miliband might live in it too.
In other words, you are proposing that we turn a blind eye whilst Assad is allowed to ethnically cleanse Syria. Indeed, that we should aid him by settling the resultant refugees. And if he does that, how long before Iran does it? Iraq? Lebanon?
It would make anything Israel does look positively modest (and that is a much more complex situation historically, with Jews having been forced out of neighbouring countries for decades before 1948).
Refugees should be allowed into neighbouring countries - Turkey in particular needs commending for their actions in this regard - and helped. However the aim should always be for them to be able to return to their rightful homes once the conflict is over.
It would be a hideous precedent that punishes the innocent, whilst leaving the barbarous Assad in power.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/09/public-opinion-and-the-politics-of-immigration/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=public-opinion-and-the-politics-of-immigration&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=83dd2e83b9-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-83dd2e83b9-66760489