Sounds like an acknowledgement that they will lose it again without the support of the opposition.But both parties right to be wary as if Cameron loses again he will have to go.And Miliband`s party don`t want to go to war and he will have a few rebels voting against the whip.
I see Ben Bradshaw is leading the demands from Labour that Cameron reruns the vote.
But Miliband seems as unable to take no for an answer as he was to take yes before the debate.
As Hague puts it:
Switching the focus to his political opponents, Hague said: "The Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take yes for an answer in terms of the motions that we present to the House of Commons. We had taken on board all the points that they had made before the debate on Thursday. All those things would have to happen to get a different result in the House of Commons and I can't see any immediate possibility of that."
Sounds like an acknowledgement that they will lose it again without the support of the opposition.But both parties right to be wary as if Cameron loses again he will have to go.And Miliband`s party don`t want to go to war and he will have a few rebels voting against the whip.
If I might say Avery for me the standout point has been the Labour position on this over the last couple of days. (Cameron can always say he's looking across the house for support given all the circumstances.) Labour going into Thursday's vote wanted conditions on military action but should those conditions be met was happy to intervene. However following the vote Miliband seemed to lurch towards embodying non-interventionism as the correct course (just as Cameron was exaggerating when he said the house had voted against action; but Cameron if Labour support has secured will have a strong case for saying that things had changed). Ed's probably going to keep stumm, I imagine, and Cameron's probably going to say he's "in discussions" or "examining the evidence" or something like that.
Ed will have to eat a very large piece of humble pie in public for Cameron to rerun the vote before he leaves for the G20 summit.
I think Cameron will let the G20 run, with all the attendant press focus on Russia and Syria, and hope for diplomatic progress to be made in St Petersburg, After all, this is what Obama is doing.
If no progress is made at the G20, then that fact alone together with a possible confirmation of CW usage by the UN inspectors may allow a 'new situation' to justify a second vote. By this time Congress deliberations may be clearer.
A week of Milband trying to work out where he stands under pressure from both the hawks and doves should in the meantime give all of us much needed comic relief.
@Charles - No. Surely a shift to the polar extremes under the weight of economic desperation ie some disillusioned former SPD voters moved the KPD, and those already on the right shifted further to the Nazis.
Anyway, if your family is the one I think it is, you might be interested that I'm currently ploughing through Sir Ian Kershaw's 'Making Friends with Hitler' that focuses on the Marquess of Londonderry, first as Air Minister from 1931-35 and his subsequent attempts to promote rapprochment with Germany. I've just reached the point where Londonderry is humiliatingly sacked in November 1935. Thus far Kershaw is meticulous in his argumentation but rarely seems to give his subject much benefit of the doubt. It's a good read though.
Fine, let's assume that you are right and it is a shift to the polar extremes. *Why* is a party that appealed mainly to the skilled working classes and had a fairly left-wing economic programme a party of the "polar right"?
I'm not a VTS, if that's what you mean - we're from further south and west.
Max, I definitely think you have more chance of changing UKIP from within and helping to create the sort of party you are looking for than you do with the Tories. There is truth in the claim that UKIP is currently the party of protest but it also has the potential to be much more than that if the right people with the right anti-statist, pro-individual ideas make their voices heard.
Oh absolutely, given the size of UKIP and the size of the Conservatives there is definitely a better chance of changing UKIP from within. Like I said, my issue isn't with UKIP's direction so much as it is with the rank and file membership. Especially some of those who come from the left who see UKIP is the solution to the immigration issues faced by the country. Many of these members wouldn't be out of place at an EDL or BNP meeting. Don't get me wrong I don't think the whole party is like that, not in the slightest, but I don't think I would feel very welcome at UKIP, not unless the leadership makes a gamble and tries to attract second generation immigrant voters and those nastier elements who have joined more recently decide UKIP isn't for them.
If that does happen (and I think it has started with Farrage opposing the spot checks) then I would have no reservations in joining UKIP.
I think to be honest it varies a lot from place to place. Certainly the leadership are very keen to encourage minority members and candidates and in places like the Black Country which have previously had quite strong BNP movements, UKIP activists like Bill Etheridge are doing a lot to target Asians to join UKIP and to promote the party as a welcoming place for minorities - with considerable success as well.
That said it was interesting what you said to Mike about your local Conservative association. Personally I am of the opinion that if they are following a Conservative agenda at the grass roots irrespective of what the leadership is doing and if that agenda matches your own, then that is far more important to stay with them and support them. I am not one of those who feels there is no future for the Tories. I may not share a lot of their current views but I do feel that with proper leadership (which for me is epitomised by David Davis) they would once again be a force that could win elections and achieve many of the things I would like to see happen.
I am certainly hoping that the G20 delivers some substantive progress on Syria. An optimist maybe but better that first before becoming a militarist of last resort.
If I might say Avery for me the standout point has been the Labour position on this over the last couple of days. (Cameron can always say he's looking across the house for support given all the circumstances.) Labour going into Thursday's vote wanted conditions on military action but should those conditions be met was happy to intervene. However following the vote Miliband seemed to lurch towards embodying non-interventionism as the correct course (just as Cameron was exaggerating when he said the house had voted against action; but Cameron if Labour support has secured will have a strong case for saying that things had changed). Ed's probably going to keep stumm, I imagine, and Cameron's probably going to say he's "in discussions" or "examining the evidence" or something like that.
Ed will have to eat a very large piece of humble pie in public for Cameron to rerun the vote before he leaves for the G20 summit.
I think Cameron will let the G20 run, with all the attendant press focus on Russia and Syria, and hope for diplomatic progress to be made in St Petersburg, After all, this is what Obama is doing.
If no progress is made at the G20, then that fact alone together with a possible confirmation of CW usage by the UN inspectors may allow a 'new situation' to justify a second vote. By this time Congress deliberations may be clearer.
A week of Milband trying to work out where he stands under pressure from both the hawks and doves should in the meantime give all of us much needed comic relief.
Talk of Cameron losing another vote are, I think, some way from any plausible future. If Cameron goes back for a "round one" vote (i.e. on principles) then he'll be damn sure of getting Labour support for it. Difficult to say at this stage the path to "round two", if any, but I'm doubtful that will happen without a consensus either (partly because it would require a change in mood).
@Charles - No. Surely a shift to the polar extremes under the weight of economic desperation ie some disillusioned former SPD voters moved the KPD, and those already on the right shifted further to the Nazis.
Anyway, if your family is the one I think it is, you might be interested that I'm currently ploughing through Sir Ian Kershaw's 'Making Friends with Hitler' that focuses on the Marquess of Londonderry, first as Air Minister from 1931-35 and his subsequent attempts to promote rapprochment with Germany. I've just reached the point where Londonderry is humiliatingly sacked in November 1935. Thus far Kershaw is meticulous in his argumentation but rarely seems to give his subject much benefit of the doubt. It's a good read though.
Fine, let's assume that you are right and it is a shift to the polar extremes. *Why* is a party that appealed mainly to the skilled working classes and had a fairly left-wing economic programme a party of the "polar right"?
I'm not a VTS, if that's what you mean - we're from further south and west.
But the Nazis never attracted the skilled working class in any great numbers. Read Professor Richard J Evans's seminal 'Coming of The Third Reich' if you're interested (as I am) in that period.
Er, VTS?? Bit opaque. I could say to whom I think you are related but that is (rightly) not permitted here. So let's leave it there.
@AveryLP I knew this, you knew this (despite your spelling) but surely it didn't need wider distribution? We might as well pass around Louise Bagshawe's posting name now. Privacy should be respected.
Senator Rand Paul on Meet The Press - At least 50/50 in House as to Syria vote, Senate likely to rubberstamp. 'Assad has protected Christians for decades, Islamic rebels attacking Christians, Al Qaeda on one side, the side we would go in to support'
@Charles - No. Surely a shift to the polar extremes under the weight of economic desperation ie some disillusioned former SPD voters moved the KPD, and those already on the right shifted further to the Nazis.
Anyway, if your family is the one I think it is, you might be interested that I'm currently ploughing through Sir Ian Kershaw's 'Making Friends with Hitler' that focuses on the Marquess of Londonderry, first as Air Minister from 1931-35 and his subsequent attempts to promote rapprochment with Germany. I've just reached the point where Londonderry is humiliatingly sacked in November 1935. Thus far Kershaw is meticulous in his argumentation but rarely seems to give his subject much benefit of the doubt. It's a good read though.
Fine, let's assume that you are right and it is a shift to the polar extremes. *Why* is a party that appealed mainly to the skilled working classes and had a fairly left-wing economic programme a party of the "polar right"?
I'm not a VTS, if that's what you mean - we're from further south and west.
But the Nazis never attracted the skilled working class in any great numbers. Read Professor Richard J Evans's seminal 'Coming of The Third Reich' if you're interested (as I am) in that period.
Er, VTS?? Bit opaque. I could say to whom I think you are related but that is (rightly) not permitted here. So let's leave it there.
VTS = Vane-Tempest-Stewart
Charles has already identified himself on PB on a number of occasions both paternal and maternal lines.
Moderator must have deleted my previous reply as I spelt the names homophonically.
Mr Bradshaw is quoted as saying Everyone was gobsmacked, including Ed, when he [Mr Cameron] stood up at the despatch box after the vote and instead of saying yes of course I'll come back to the house for a second vote if we want military action he said military action is off the table.
When someone has decided they are obliged to recommend action which is going to result in deaths, I can understand them being eloquent in trying to convince others of the necessity. But equally I can well imagine that, if the vote goes against them, they would be only to glad to say "OK, I thought that was my duty & I did my best, but thanks a million for not obliging me to follow through".
There ain't gonna be another vote. Whilst of course it is quite understandable, even praiseworthy, that sensible figures within Labour are horrified at what Miliband did and the consequences for the UK and possibly the Middle East, the fact is that he did it. This is not some PPE essay where if you get it wrong your tutor might suggest you go and re-write it; this is real life, and the consequences are already being seen.
Mr Bradshaw is quoted as saying Everyone was gobsmacked, including Ed, when he [Mr Cameron] stood up at the despatch box after the vote and instead of saying yes of course I'll come back to the house for a second vote if we want military action he said military action is off the table.
What in the name of heaven did they think he was going to say? If they wanted to vote for, they should have voted for (there was already provision for a second vote, of course). Cameron needed cross-party support, but in the end didn't get it from Labour, despite having accepted all Labour's conditions.
"Britain 'giving in to sharia councils' says Norway's anti-immigration leader
Britain is "giving into the claims of Sharia councils", according to the leader of Norway's anti-immigration party which is poised to enter government later this month."
"Australia begrudgingly willing to accept Mad Monk Tony Abbott
For years it seemed a political impossibility – laughable, even – that Australia's British-born opposition leader, Tony Abbott, a God-fearing former boxer otherwise known as the Mad Monk, would ever achieve his lifetime ambition."
If I might say Avery for me the standout point has been the Labour position on this over the last couple of days. (Cameron can always say he's looking across the house for support given all the circumstances.) Labour going into Thursday's vote wanted conditions on military action but should those conditions be met was happy to intervene. However following the vote Miliband seemed to lurch towards embodying non-interventionism as the correct course (just as Cameron was exaggerating when he said the house had voted against action; but Cameron if Labour support has secured will have a strong case for saying that things had changed). Ed's probably going to keep stumm, I imagine, and Cameron's probably going to say he's "in discussions" or "examining the evidence" or something like that.
Ed will have to eat a very large piece of humble pie in public for Cameron to rerun the vote before he leaves for the G20 summit.
I think Cameron will let the G20 run, with all the attendant press focus on Russia and Syria, and hope for diplomatic progress to be made in St Petersburg, After all, this is what Obama is doing.
If no progress is made at the G20, then that fact alone together with a possible confirmation of CW usage by the UN inspectors may allow a 'new situation' to justify a second vote. By this time Congress deliberations may also be clearer.
A week of Milband trying to work out where he stands under pressure from both the hawks and doves should in the meantime give all of us much needed comic relief.
Only a few days ago you told us that Miliband and Parliament were an irrelevance, and Hague's brilliance was all working behind the scenes to ensure a magnificent victory for Captain Calamity.
Kevin Rudd has admitted that he and the ruling Labor party face "the fight of our lives" at his official campaign launch in Australia amid polls showing he is on track for a heavy election defeat."
If I might say Avery for me the standout point has been the Labour position on this over the last couple of days. (Cameron can always say he's looking across the house for support given all the circumstances.) Labour going into Thursday's vote wanted conditions on military action but should those conditions be met was happy to intervene. However following the vote Miliband seemed to lurch towards embodying non-interventionism as the correct course (just as Cameron was exaggerating when he said the house had voted against action; but Cameron if Labour support has secured will have a strong case for saying that things had changed). Ed's probably going to keep stumm, I imagine, and Cameron's probably going to say he's "in discussions" or "examining the evidence" or something like that.
Ed will have to eat a very large piece of humble pie in public for Cameron to rerun the vote before he leaves for the G20 summit.
I think Cameron will let the G20 run, with all the attendant press focus on Russia and Syria, and hope for diplomatic progress to be made in St Petersburg, After all, this is what Obama is doing.
If no progress is made at the G20, then that fact alone together with a possible confirmation of CW usage by the UN inspectors may allow a 'new situation' to justify a second vote. By this time Congress deliberations may also be clearer.
A week of Milband trying to work out where he stands under pressure from both the hawks and doves should in the meantime give all of us much needed comic relief.
Only a few days ago you told us that Miliband and Parliament were an irrelevance, and Hague's brilliance was all working behind the scenes to ensure a magnificent victory for Captain Calamity.
Worked out well, huh.
Charlatan.
Quote back to me what I said, prove your gloss is correct and I too will eat humble pie.
The idea that there is some revolt going on in the Labour party for intervention is laughable. Jowell, Hain, Reid were all explicitly ruling out military action. Jim Fitzpatrick who voted for Iraq(!) actually resigned because he thought Ed was going to back Cameron. Bradshaw & Murphy are part of the dwindling band of Blairites. Let's not start on Hodges whose Twitter feed suggests his finally lost it. I can no longer take his articles to be analysis just fantasy polemic about how terrible this will be for Ed & Labour.
Fact is that if Ed had supported action there would have been a far greater and much more damaging split. Nick Watt of the Guardian is a notorious Blair sycophant everything I read of his I take it with a pinch of salt. I have challenged Westminster hacks to put a number & names to this legion of unhappy pro-war Labour MPs and they can't.
Fact is that large number of neocon interventionists mainly around the Times (where Gove used to work) are pissed off that Ed, on the side of public opinion, is utterly repudiating the Blair formula and instinct for military adventurism. 'The Master' as the Cameroons still ludicrously call him. They are stuck in a 1999 time warp where everyone loves Blair when the opposite is true his articles this week were manna from heaven to the anti-interventionists. Andrew Bridgen Tory MP quipped on Newsnight that Blair was the final nail in the coffin of the idea of military action in Syria.
I don't buy it that large numbers of the British public will scorn Labour for not backing this intervention. To be brutally honest Syria is probably not top of the list of their priorities and Cameron can probably take comfort from that fact as his cock up can soon be forgotten.
Syria is a complicated place and the case of intervening in that civil war, however desperate and sad, has simply not been made.
If Ed didn't support military action then why did he submit an amendment to the government motion expressly asking the House to support such action, subject to near identical conditions to those of the government.
It appears Ed Miliband doesn't really know what he wants.
Why is the following Labour Party Press Release still on the party's website?
Press Release
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, speaking after meeting the Prime Minister in Downing Street, said:
"The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored.
"When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals.
"We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis."
So you are saying that Ed Miliband deliberately sabotaged a government vote on international security in order to avoid a split in this party?
And that he drafted an amendment to a government motion which gave conditional support to the UK's participation in an intervention by a coalition of the country's closest allies but didn't really mean what he proposed?
Andy JS - The weekend polls have it Galaxy and Morgan 53/47, Newspoll 54/46. Keating lost 54-46 in '96 and Howard 53/47 in '07 so that margin is about average for a losing government rather than the massacre Gillard would probably have suffered. A comfortable enough win for Abbott, who will also become the new poster boy for the Thatcherite right in the UK (although I doubt Cameron will be too concerned Rudd lost, as he did criticise his austerity drive strongly)
So you are saying that Ed Miliband deliberately sabotaged a government vote on international security in order to avoid a split in this party?
And that he drafted an amendment to a government motion which gave conditional support to the UK's participation in an intervention by a coalition of the country's closest allies but didn't really mean what he proposed?
You keep on prosecuting your anti-Ed case or whatever it is you think he should or shouldn't have done. Hyperbole is all the neocon losers have left & harrumphing of you & Cameron will not make one iota of difference to the widespread hostility there is to a military adventure in Syria among the public. Big words 'international security', 'closest allies'.
Tell us about this coalition for action in Syria:
Russia & China opposed. Arab League OUT Italy OUT Germany OUT Grand Mufti of Al Azhar condemns intervention (so much for Muslim support).
Guess it will just have to be Sheriff (US) & Deputy Sheriff (France taking our role).
Memo: France & Germany opposed Iraq forcefully & the former wielded a defacto veto tell us how that affected their long term relations with the US?
You will have to do better than this barrage of inanities my friend.
I have lived in Syria & IT IS A CIVIL WAR recommend you read Patrick Cockburn in the Indy and educate yourself just a bit.
AM88 See Rand Paul's interview I posted below, he thinks its 50/50 whether the House of Representatives will support action in Syria, if the House votes it down even if the Senate backs it Obama could wash his hands of it and the US do nothing at all
Arab League foreign ministers have urged the international community and the United Nations to take "deterrent" action against the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
"The United Nations and the international community are called upon to assume their responsibilities in line with the UN Charter and international law by taking the necessary deterrent measures", the ministers said in a statement on Sunday following a meeting in Cairo.
It said that the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad was "responsible" for the August 21 attack.
The foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have done.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel hit out at Russia and China over their stance in the Syrian crisis, saying in an interview published Saturday that their action weakened the United Nations.
"It is very regrettable that Russia and China have refused for some time to come to a common position (with Western partners) on the Syrian conflict. This considerably weakens the role of the United Nations," she said in an interview with regional daily Augsburger Allgemeine.
....
Merkel reiterated that the use of chemical weapons in Syria had "broken a taboo" which "cannot remain without consequence".
However, she categorically excluded German participation in any military action without prior approval from the international community.
"Germany cannot participate in any military intervention without a mandate from the United Nations, NATO or the EU," she said.
Quite clear that Merkel supports the proposed action of the US and France and would participate if it were to obtain a mandate from the UN, NATO or the EU. The German Constitution, for historical reasons, would prevent her authorising participant without such mandate.
No point in fisking every claim you have made as your two principal claims relating to the Arab League and Germany fail.
What you don't seem to accept is that your party leader, Ed Miliband also gave similar conditional support for UK intervention in Syria, both by drafting his amendment to the government motion and through the votes of his party for that amendment; as well as by issuing the press statement posted to the Labour Party website two days prior to the vote.
You are not suggesting that Ed Miliband lied or dissembled are you?
The 1933 Nazi Party was still committed to the nationalisation of core industry and a program of full employment. If you look at the posters here, they all have a left-wing feel by modern standards.
Between 1928 and November 1932, the DNVP (Conservative right) went from 14 to 6%, the SPD (Socialist left) from 29% to 20% and the DVP (Liberal right) from 9 to 2%, whilst the Communists did relatively well. Considering the Nazis achieved 37% of the vote in that election, all the movements are substantial (they were at 3% in 1928, although this did get the deputies under PR).
In the year before the 1932 election the Bolsheviks murdered 3+ million people in Ukraine.
They weren't socialist imo. The communists were a threat to the capitalists and bour-can never spell it right-sie so they needed a party that could draw some of the more patriotic / nationalist / religious elements of the working class away from the communists. The socialist parts of their program were simply a marketing pitch.
They'd never have got beyond that imo if the commies hadn't gone on a mass-murder spree in Russia.
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
OT, Republican senators variously say they won't vote for bombing unless Obama can show he won't get drawn into an ongoing war and that they won't vote for it unless he guarantees escalation into an ongoing war:
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Come on Artful.
You think the Houses will vote down support for a President when he has issued a red line and it has been crossed?
Superpowers don't emasculate themselves.
If Congress can't agree (highly possible) there will be no vote not a "No!" vote.
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Careful Sunil or I'll break your eggs.
Eggs? Well, the yolk's on your leader Cameron. Tried to emulate his pin-up boy Tony Blair on Thursday night, but failed spectacularly - 285 v. 272 did I hear?
EdinTokyo/AveryLP I actually think it highly likely the House of Representatives will vote down military action, unlike the Senate it is a populist body which sees itself as a literal representative of the people (hence the title) if it could vote down the bail-out in 2008 which could have brought the global economy to its knees voting down a few missiles or strikes on Syria will be no obstacle at all!
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Careful Sunil or I'll break your eggs.
Eggs? Well, the yolk's on your leader Cameron. Tried to emulate his pin-up boy Tony Blair on Thursday night, but failed spectacularly - 285 v. 272 did I hear?
Note: the subject Sunil did not respond to the stimulus as expected.
EdinTokyo/AveryLP I actually think it highly likely the House of Representatives will vote down military action, unlike the Senate it is a populist body which sees itself as a literal representative of the people (hence the title) if it could vote down the bail-out in 2008 which could have brought the global economy to its knees voting down a few missiles or strikes on Syria will be no obstacle at all!
But you didn't think Obama would either (a) authorise military action; or, (b) put it to Congress.
AveryLP When did I ever say he would not put it to Congress? It simply follows his record (with the exception of killing Bin Laden) of being the Ditherer in Chief. He has already delayed action by a month and basically sent Assad a postcard telling him when and where to expect a strike meaning that the only person he will likely hit is an unfortunate tea lady who turned up for work at a Syrian Chemical Weapons' factory only to find it has all been deserted!
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Careful Sunil or I'll break your eggs.
Eggs? Well, the yolk's on your leader Cameron. Tried to emulate his pin-up boy Tony Blair on Thursday night, but failed spectacularly - 285 v. 272 did I hear?
Note: the subject Sunil did not respond to the stimulus as expected.
AveryLP When did I ever say he would not put it to Congress? It simply follows his record (with the exception of killing Bin Laden) of being the Ditherer in Chief. He has already delayed action by a month and basically sent Assad a postcard telling him when and where to expect a strike meaning that the only person he will likely hit is an unfortunate tea lady who turned up for work at a Syrian Chemical Weapons' factory only to find it has all been deserted!
Obama is a different kind of ditherer to Miliband though. He takes time to perfect his decisions rather than to vacillate between action and inaction.
As the current plan is, as Matt said, "fly over Syria, wag a finger at Assad and fly home" then delay doesn't really matter militarily.
Upping the pressure on Russia is far more important and there is a real opportunity for Obama and allies to do this at the G20 meeting in St Petersburg. The eyes of the press will be on Russia and Syria right through the summit. It would also have been difficult for Obama to attend if missiles were raining down on Damascus.
I can see a proposal, jointly and widely agreed by US allies, being put to Russia at the G20. Maybe a decommissioning of CW under Russian/UN supervision. Maybe a wider call for negotiations to start. Either way, a position which would be universally supported by hawk and dove alike.
Obama and allies would then apply 'one minute to midnight' pressure on Russia through the summit.
Meanwhile back in Washington, the military stategists will get to work on "constextualising" Pentagon strategy. Defining strategic goals, contingencies and limits and generally turning the 'flyover and wave' proposal into a workable military strategy.
Congress may or may not buy this but the important thing at this stage is for the discussions of mission creep to be running at the same time as the pressure is being applied to Russia and China.
Obama will then either be able to return from St Petersburg with an agreed ultimatum resolution which can work its way through the UNSC, or a rejection of a reasonable last ditch attempt to get agreement and a consequent upgraded need for military intervention.
Congress can either go with the President or dither until his patience runs out and he authorises the Pentagon to go ahead with a better worked interventionary strategy.
On you saying it will not be put to Congress my apologies if I got that wrong!
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Careful Sunil or I'll break your eggs.
Eggs? Well, the yolk's on your leader Cameron. Tried to emulate his pin-up boy Tony Blair on Thursday night, but failed spectacularly - 285 v. 272 did I hear?
Note: the subject Sunil did not respond to the stimulus as expected.
Did not, Avery?
How so?
Did you miss the Stalin link to both divisions and eggs, Pope and omelettes?
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing. Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing. Italy OUT Egyptian FM against strikes Russia & China opposed Al Azhar opposed Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms... Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
How many divisions does the Pope have, AM88?
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Careful Sunil or I'll break your eggs.
Eggs? Well, the yolk's on your leader Cameron. Tried to emulate his pin-up boy Tony Blair on Thursday night, but failed spectacularly - 285 v. 272 did I hear?
Note: the subject Sunil did not respond to the stimulus as expected.
Did not, Avery?
How so?
Did you miss the Stalin link to both divisions and eggs, Pope and omelettes?
Putin won't agree to anything, on Congress apology accepted, but it will be a straight down the line vote to give Obama authority to take action, if they vote it down very little he can then do apart from perhaps launch missile strikes using the Senate vote as cover. Anyway, got to get to bed, night!
EdinTokyo/AveryLP I actually think it highly likely the House of Representatives will vote down military action, unlike the Senate it is a populist body which sees itself as a literal representative of the people (hence the title) if it could vote down the bail-out in 2008 which could have brought the global economy to its knees voting down a few missiles or strikes on Syria will be no obstacle at all!
Agreed, it should pass the Senate but I don't think anybody knows what the House is going to do. That includes Boehner, whose vote-counting issues are even worse that Cameron's.
Merkel rejects even indirect support for US Syria strikes echoing Steinbruck in German Chancellor debate bad news for neocon AveryLP's attempt to convince of the super wide coalition of willing that is supposedly being assembled to save Syria. More like a coalition of the unwilling.
A lot of talk but its all fairly straightforward and was set out here a few days ago.
Obama's problem is that he wants to ensure an outcome that he can't ensure and that is a grand bargain with Russia and Iran over the Syrian matter. He was quite happy to trade a minimal strike for some kind of peace plan with all kinds of regional attachments added on.
The Iranians in particular said no.
Obama then is faced with his red line crossed, no certain outcome and in line with much of his domestic policy is looking to hitch others at home on to the wagon to give him cover. He is well aware that to do a proper action requires proper strikes and doesn't fancy that call on his own. In short he wants others to take the political bullets with him.
The man has so far completely failed to deal with the recent upheavals in the region well at all, hacked off regional allies and at the weekend cut off his Secretary of State at the knees. The USA's opponents, dictators or effective dictatorships all, are pissing themselves laughing.
Good sense would have told him to just arm up the USA's chosen insurgents (they do have them) in Jordan send them out to Damascus. Thats what really craps the Assad regime out, fresh legs from the south. Once there is a sign that they are going to lose, there are plenty in the regime who will be pragmatic as evidenced by the denial by key players in the regime of any involvement in the chemical weapons attack that triggered this hoopla. A lot of them don't want to be left holding that hot potato.
If the US doesn't fancy it then fine, walk away but stop trying to tell other countries who are supporting the insurgents what to do and what not to do. If you abdicate leadership then you let it go and let those who see it in their strategic interest get on with it.
Ive used the phrase hokey cokey many times before regarding US actions and their in-out approach when it comes to Syria. This weekend just showed it at work on its most public stage.
Merkel rejects even indirect support for US Syria strikes echoing Steinbruck in German Chancellor debate bad news for neocon AveryLP's attempt to convince of the super wide coalition of willing that is supposedly being assembled to save Syria. More like a coalition of the unwilling.
No one has suggested that Germany will participate in a US led strike on Syria which has not been authorised by the UN, NATO or the EU. Such action would be in conflict with Germany's constitution.
And setting aside the constitutional restriction, Germany has a general election on September 22nd and the official campaign is now underway. Both Angela Merkel and her main rival in the election ruled out direct German participaton in their first televised debate yesterday (Sunday).
Merkel's official position is as stated in my previous post on this subject. She is urging Russia and China to work with other western powers to reach a solution within the UNSC. This is hardly surprising as the US, UK and France all share a wish for a UNSC resolution on Syria.
As Angela Merkel put it in the debate herself she is "very glad we have a few days" to revive efforts to find a UN solution. She has already spoken directly to Putin by telephone and urged him to co-operate with the US within the UNSC and she will join Obama, Cameron, Hollande and other G20 participants in continuing to apply pressure on Russia and China next week in St Petersburg,
Merkel has however made it quite clear that the use of CW by Assad requires a response from the international community and has indicated that she expects a multilateral strike by the US and willing partners if the "few days" left for negotiation do not result in a UNSC resolution.
This is very different to the position taken by Germany on the Bush-Blair intervention in Iraq,
There will be no UNSC support ergo there will be no German support. Odd references to Pistachio farming is meant as a kind of joke and/or insult? lame.
Comments
Russia and China know who matters in the world, and it is not Syria.
I'm not a VTS, if that's what you mean - we're from further south and west.
That said it was interesting what you said to Mike about your local Conservative association. Personally I am of the opinion that if they are following a Conservative agenda at the grass roots irrespective of what the leadership is doing and if that agenda matches your own, then that is far more important to stay with them and support them. I am not one of those who feels there is no future for the Tories. I may not share a lot of their current views but I do feel that with proper leadership (which for me is epitomised by David Davis) they would once again be a force that could win elections and achieve many of the things I would like to see happen.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/12/30/antifrank-looks-ahead-to-2013/#disqus_thread
That''s what we would prefer.
Er, VTS?? Bit opaque. I could say to whom I think you are related but that is (rightly) not permitted here. So let's leave it there.
Now that would be priceless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAxK9s4pNNI
Charles has already identified himself on PB on a number of occasions both paternal and maternal lines.
Moderator must have deleted my previous reply as I spelt the names homophonically.
Mr Bradshaw is quoted as saying Everyone was gobsmacked, including Ed, when he [Mr Cameron] stood up at the despatch box after the vote and instead of saying yes of course I'll come back to the house for a second vote if we want military action he said military action is off the table.
When someone has decided they are obliged to recommend action which is going to result in deaths, I can understand them being eloquent in trying to convince others of the necessity. But equally I can well imagine that, if the vote goes against them, they would be only to glad to say "OK, I thought that was my duty & I did my best, but thanks a million for not obliging me to follow through".
Please desist re Charles.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=drive_web#gid=0
Too late to renege on their reneging now.
Britain is "giving into the claims of Sharia councils", according to the leader of Norway's anti-immigration party which is poised to enter government later this month."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/10279019/Britain-giving-in-to-sharia-councils-says-Norways-anti-immigration-leader.html
For years it seemed a political impossibility – laughable, even – that Australia's British-born opposition leader, Tony Abbott, a God-fearing former boxer otherwise known as the Mad Monk, would ever achieve his lifetime ambition."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10278034/Australia-begrudgingly-willing-to-accept-Mad-Monk-Tony-Abbott.html
Worked out well, huh.
Charlatan.
Kevin Rudd has admitted that he and the ruling Labor party face "the fight of our lives" at his official campaign launch in Australia amid polls showing he is on track for a heavy election defeat."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10278790/Kevin-Rudd-facing-fight-of-his-life.html
Dan Hodges?
Amongst Labour MPs, I'll leave you to guess. Clues start here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10278338/Syrian-crisis-Ed-Miliband-faces-growing-criticism-from-Labour-ranks.html
Night!
Fact is that if Ed had supported action there would have been a far greater and much more damaging split. Nick Watt of the Guardian is a notorious Blair sycophant everything I read of his I take it with a pinch of salt. I have challenged Westminster hacks to put a number & names to this legion of unhappy pro-war Labour MPs and they can't.
Fact is that large number of neocon interventionists mainly around the Times (where Gove used to work) are pissed off that Ed, on the side of public opinion, is utterly repudiating the Blair formula and instinct for military adventurism. 'The Master' as the Cameroons still ludicrously call him. They are stuck in a 1999 time warp where everyone loves Blair when the opposite is true his articles this week were manna from heaven to the anti-interventionists. Andrew Bridgen Tory MP quipped on Newsnight that Blair was the final nail in the coffin of the idea of military action in Syria.
I don't buy it that large numbers of the British public will scorn Labour for not backing this intervention. To be brutally honest Syria is probably not top of the list of their priorities and Cameron can probably take comfort from that fact as his cock up can soon be forgotten.
Syria is a complicated place and the case of intervening in that civil war, however desperate and sad, has simply not been made.
It appears Ed Miliband doesn't really know what he wants.
Why is the following Labour Party Press Release still on the party's website?
Press Release
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, speaking after meeting the Prime Minister in Downing Street, said:
"The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored.
"When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals.
"We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis."
And William "P45" Hague.
Fact is that if Ed had supported action .
So you are saying that Ed Miliband deliberately sabotaged a government vote on international security in order to avoid a split in this party?
And that he drafted an amendment to a government motion which gave conditional support to the UK's participation in an intervention by a coalition of the country's closest allies but didn't really mean what he proposed?
To be a leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition you need to show principle, integrity and honesty.
Compare Miliband's performance to that of Michael Foot in the HoC debate on the Falklands War.
There is no comparison, Carl.
Tell us about this coalition for action in Syria:
Russia & China opposed.
Arab League OUT
Italy OUT
Germany OUT
Grand Mufti of Al Azhar condemns intervention (so much for Muslim support).
Guess it will just have to be Sheriff (US) & Deputy Sheriff (France taking our role).
Memo: France & Germany opposed Iraq forcefully & the former wielded a defacto veto tell us how that affected their long term relations with the US?
You will have to do better than this barrage of inanities my friend.
I have lived in Syria & IT IS A CIVIL WAR recommend you read Patrick Cockburn in the Indy and educate yourself just a bit.
Let's take your points one at a time.
Arab League OUT
The position of the Arab League:
Arab League foreign ministers have urged the international community and the United Nations to take "deterrent" action against the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons.
"The United Nations and the international community are called upon to assume their responsibilities in line with the UN Charter and international law by taking the necessary deterrent measures", the ministers said in a statement on Sunday following a meeting in Cairo.
It said that the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad was "responsible" for the August 21 attack.
The foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have done.
[Source: Al Jazeera today]
Germany OUT
The position of Angela Merkel:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel hit out at Russia and China over their stance in the Syrian crisis, saying in an interview published Saturday that their action weakened the United Nations.
"It is very regrettable that Russia and China have refused for some time to come to a common position (with Western partners) on the Syrian conflict. This considerably weakens the role of the United Nations," she said in an interview with regional daily Augsburger Allgemeine.
....
Merkel reiterated that the use of chemical weapons in Syria had "broken a taboo" which "cannot remain without consequence".
However, she categorically excluded German participation in any military action without prior approval from the international community.
"Germany cannot participate in any military intervention without a mandate from the United Nations, NATO or the EU," she said.
Quite clear that Merkel supports the proposed action of the US and France and would participate if it were to obtain a mandate from the UN, NATO or the EU. The German Constitution, for historical reasons, would prevent her authorising participant without such mandate.
No point in fisking every claim you have made as your two principal claims relating to the Arab League and Germany fail.
What you don't seem to accept is that your party leader, Ed Miliband also gave similar conditional support for UK intervention in Syria, both by drafting his amendment to the government motion and through the votes of his party for that amendment; as well as by issuing the press statement posted to the Labour Party website two days prior to the vote.
You are not suggesting that Ed Miliband lied or dissembled are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
The Nazis were a reaction to the Bolsheviks.
They weren't socialist imo. The communists were a threat to the capitalists and bour-can never spell it right-sie so they needed a party that could draw some of the more patriotic / nationalist / religious elements of the working class away from the communists. The socialist parts of their program were simply a marketing pitch.
They'd never have got beyond that imo if the commies hadn't gone on a mass-murder spree in Russia.
I think the only connection between AM88 and Cockburn is the empty bottle lying at the former's feet.
erm yes because I am well respected journalist & expert on Syria & I am commenting on political betting you are a genius.
Yes Arab League supports it so much that it will do nothing.
Yes she supports it so much that Germany will do nothing.
Italy OUT
Egyptian FM against strikes
Russia & China opposed
Al Azhar opposed
Pope against war
Yes the world is falling over itself to join this military coalition with men, money & arms...
Go lie in a darkened room and keep on having your neocon fantasies am sure they are a great comfort at this time... Perhaps you can cradle a copy of 'A Journey' it will be as a source of great comfort & solace for you.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-gop-senators-syria-20130901,0,2785978.story
You think the Houses will vote down support for a President when he has issued a red line and it has been crossed?
Superpowers don't emasculate themselves.
If Congress can't agree (highly possible) there will be no vote not a "No!" vote.
If you give me the co-ordinates of your pistachio farm, I'll put a quiet word in Chuck Hagel's ear.
How can I trust you now, HYUFD?
How so?
As the current plan is, as Matt said, "fly over Syria, wag a finger at Assad and fly home" then delay doesn't really matter militarily.
Upping the pressure on Russia is far more important and there is a real opportunity for Obama and allies to do this at the G20 meeting in St Petersburg. The eyes of the press will be on Russia and Syria right through the summit. It would also have been difficult for Obama to attend if missiles were raining down on Damascus.
I can see a proposal, jointly and widely agreed by US allies, being put to Russia at the G20. Maybe a decommissioning of CW under Russian/UN supervision. Maybe a wider call for negotiations to start. Either way, a position which would be universally supported by hawk and dove alike.
Obama and allies would then apply 'one minute to midnight' pressure on Russia through the summit.
Meanwhile back in Washington, the military stategists will get to work on "constextualising" Pentagon strategy. Defining strategic goals, contingencies and limits and generally turning the 'flyover and wave' proposal into a workable military strategy.
Congress may or may not buy this but the important thing at this stage is for the discussions of mission creep to be running at the same time as the pressure is being applied to Russia and China.
Obama will then either be able to return from St Petersburg with an agreed ultimatum resolution which can work its way through the UNSC, or a rejection of a reasonable last ditch attempt to get agreement and a consequent upgraded need for military intervention.
Congress can either go with the President or dither until his patience runs out and he authorises the Pentagon to go ahead with a better worked interventionary strategy.
On you saying it will not be put to Congress my apologies if I got that wrong!
Obama's problem is that he wants to ensure an outcome that he can't ensure and that is a grand bargain with Russia and Iran over the Syrian matter. He was quite happy to trade a minimal strike for some kind of peace plan with all kinds of regional attachments added on.
The Iranians in particular said no.
Obama then is faced with his red line crossed, no certain outcome and in line with much of his domestic policy is looking to hitch others at home on to the wagon to give him cover. He is well aware that to do a proper action requires proper strikes and doesn't fancy that call on his own. In short he wants others to take the political bullets with him.
The man has so far completely failed to deal with the recent upheavals in the region well at all, hacked off regional allies and at the weekend cut off his Secretary of State at the knees. The USA's opponents, dictators or effective dictatorships all, are pissing themselves laughing.
Good sense would have told him to just arm up the USA's chosen insurgents (they do have them) in Jordan send them out to Damascus. Thats what really craps the Assad regime out, fresh legs from the south. Once there is a sign that they are going to lose, there are plenty in the regime who will be pragmatic as evidenced by the denial by key players in the regime of any involvement in the chemical weapons attack that triggered this hoopla. A lot of them don't want to be left holding that hot potato.
If the US doesn't fancy it then fine, walk away but stop trying to tell other countries who are supporting the insurgents what to do and what not to do. If you abdicate leadership then you let it go and let those who see it in their strategic interest get on with it.
Ive used the phrase hokey cokey many times before regarding US actions and their in-out approach when it comes to Syria. This weekend just showed it at work on its most public stage.
Unusual roof...
And setting aside the constitutional restriction, Germany has a general election on September 22nd and the official campaign is now underway. Both Angela Merkel and her main rival in the election ruled out direct German participaton in their first televised debate yesterday (Sunday).
Merkel's official position is as stated in my previous post on this subject. She is urging Russia and China to work with other western powers to reach a solution within the UNSC. This is hardly surprising as the US, UK and France all share a wish for a UNSC resolution on Syria.
As Angela Merkel put it in the debate herself she is "very glad we have a few days" to revive efforts to find a UN solution. She has already spoken directly to Putin by telephone and urged him to co-operate with the US within the UNSC and she will join Obama, Cameron, Hollande and other G20 participants in continuing to apply pressure on Russia and China next week in St Petersburg,
Merkel has however made it quite clear that the use of CW by Assad requires a response from the international community and has indicated that she expects a multilateral strike by the US and willing partners if the "few days" left for negotiation do not result in a UNSC resolution.
This is very different to the position taken by Germany on the Bush-Blair intervention in Iraq,
Suggest you stick to pistachio farming AM88.