I'm particularly baffled as to this line that Avery (and RN) were giving that EdM is somehow desperate to have another vote on Syria.
Can't speak for Avery, but certainly I never said anything even remotely similar to that.
There are of course Labour figures reported to be seeking another vote, but, as I said, it won't happen.
As for Ed M, of course he doesn't want another vote. As you say, it would split his party. In addition, it would show up his silly games last week even more starkly.
Surbiton.. Lets see how heroic you are when the next batch of slaughtered kids are pictured on the news.. betcha would feel proud.. Thanks to the likes of you we are now not even in a negotiating stance.. how stupid can Labour get..
Richard Dodd, lets see how heroic you are when muslims across the region are vowing revenge for the kids slaughtered by western bombing. Bet you would be hiding behind your anonymity then bewailing the fact that it is all so unfair as we were only trying to help. How stupid you warmongers are.
" NEARLY 300 foreign crooks dodged deportation last year — by arguing it would breach their human rights.
The rate of offenders using the loophole nearly doubled on the previous year despite Government pressure on judges to get tougher. Home Office stats show 299 “foreign national offenders” won appeals citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — right to a family life. Over the previous 12 months, 177 succeeded.
In February, Home Secretary Theresa May warned Britain’s streets were being made more dangerous by immigration judges failing to kick out criminals. Last week it emerged Sanel Sahbaz, a Bosnian living in Hertford, had won his appeal against deportation thanks to Article 8. His offences since 2005 include common assault, handling stolen goods, assaulting a police officer and theft.
Until we get a decent size poll I think we're in that fun area of nobody knows and everybody lies. Presumably somebody might commission a reliable poll soon since we're one year out from the big day.
Quite:
"New polling, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Devo Plus group, has shown the dramatic effect which Devo Plus could have on the result of the independence referendum."
Theresa May or George Osborne would be good candidates for the job. May's ambitions satisfied by either CFO or CoE job. Osborne a chance solve a sticky problem and strategise without standing on anyone's domestic toes.
O/T: The German TV network ARD shows a big swing to the SPD's Steinbrueck against Merkel - before the debate, Merkel led 54-28 in personal preference, afterwards, with the same audience, the lead was down to 48-45. He seems to have particularly impressed undecided voters. Merkel is still marginally ahead but the leadership bonus that she was giving has been eroded:the rival ZDF channel found that viewers thougt Merkel had won by 40-33, but undecided voters thought she narrowly lost by 35-37. 47-13 thought Steinbrueck did better than expected, whereas Merkel mainly got "as expected", with 15% saying "worse" and 10% "better".
What's missing is any voting intention polls before and after.
@Andrea that is indeed big news in my area. I thought he might announce his intentions to stand down at the next GE during this Parliament, but the longer he left it the more it looked like he might stand again giving the Libdems currently polling in Scotland. Bruce would IMHO have hung on if he had chosen to stand again, this now throws his Gordon seat wide open. The 2005 boundary changes were very favourable to the Libdems in the North East of Scotland, and there has previously been a very strong pocket of Libdem support running along the boundary areas between Gordon and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
On topic: As it happens, I'm accidentally on Andrew Mitchell at very good odds from before Plebgate. That wasn't looking a terribly smart bet for a while (!), but at least now it's back in the realms of the not-unimaginable. Still, I don't think it's very likely - 16/1 looks too short.
Hague will almost certainly stay on until 2015 - why wouldn't he? He's proving to be a very good Foreign Sec, and it seems (as far as one can tell these things from the outside) a job which he loves. There's even less reason to suppose Cameron would want to move him.
Therefore, I'd have thought any potential value in this market relates to the post-2015 period. I'm not sure, though, that the 4/1 on Douglas Alexander is particularly good value; the probability here is what you get by multiplying together the probabilities of:
- Hague remaining until the next election - The next government being Labour-led - Douglas Alexander getting the gig in that government
Unlike the position of Ed Balls - which looks unassailable - I don't think that Douglas Alexander is guaranteed to keep his current brief in a Miliband-led government; they don't seem particularly close politically, Alexander is not particularly a specialist in Foreign Affairs, and there's even the possibility that the next government might contain LibDems, who (depending on the arithmetic) might have ambitions to grab the Foreign Sec role.
Let's say .9 x .5 x .5 = 22.5%.
That's not enough margin on a 4/1 (20% probability) bet. No bet.
"All too often, it is only when someone dies that people suddenly publicly discover that individual’s many virtues. That is almost certainly the case with Sir David Frost, the broadcaster and media mogul who died at the weekend. For although he was a legendary media personality, he was persistently dismissed as a lightweight interviewer. He was scorned for bowling his guests only the softest of interrogatory balls, and derided for becoming an establishment toady, as unctuous as his lifestyle was grand.
Nevertheless, it was Frost who, in 1977, pulled off what was arguably the greatest coup in interviewing history when he got the disgraced former U.S. President Richard Nixon to admit his culpability in the Watergate scandal and that he had ‘let down the country’. This encounter has passed into broadcasting legend. It became the most- watched political interview ever, attracting 45 million viewers; gave rise to books and articles; and was immortalised in the stage play and subsequent film, Frost/Nixon.
On that occasion, Frost had asked him such hilariously open-goal questions as: ‘Are there any essentially American characteristics?’; ‘For an American today, what can the dream or goal be?’; and (gloriously) ‘This is a vast question, I know, but at root, what would you say that people are on Earth for?’ How folk chortled. But more thoughtful observers, noted Reston, had spotted that, lulled into a false sense of security, Nixon had been far more personally and politically revealing than he would otherwise have been.
O/T: The German TV network ARD shows a big swing to the SPD's Steinbrueck against Merkel - before the debate, Merkel led 54-28 in personal preference, afterwards, with the same audience, the lead was down to 48-45. He seems to have particularly impressed undecided voters. Merkel is still marginally ahead but the leadership bonus that she was giving has been eroded:the rival ZDF channel found that viewers thougt Merkel had won by 40-33, but undecided voters thought she narrowly lost by 35-37. 47-13 thought Steinbrueck did better than expected, whereas Merkel mainly got "as expected", with 15% saying "worse" and 10% "better".
What's missing is any voting intention polls before and after.
One needs to be very careful about such polling. Actual voting behaviour doesn't tend to change. Remember the Obama/Romney first debate.
"DJL .. Labour are not even talking about the possibility of ending the war.. we do not have an iron in the fire now .. Thanks Ed , nice one"
Judging from random conversations I've had in the last four days in three separate parts of the country, and the national polls, "thanks ed, nice one" is the view out there in the country.
"DJL .. Labour are not even talking about the possibility of ending the war.. we do not have an iron in the fire now .. Thanks Ed , nice one"
Judging from random conversations I've had in the last four days in three separate parts of the country, and the national polls, "thanks ed, nice one" is the view out there in the country.
"DJL .. Labour are not even talking about the possibility of ending the war.. we do not have an iron in the fire now .. Thanks Ed , nice one"
Judging from random conversations I've had in the last four days in three separate parts of the country, and the national polls, "thanks ed, nice one" is the view out there in the country.
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
Missing the debate for his sister's wedding is entirely reasonable. Not returning after the wedding for a late-evening vote is another matter.
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
Missing the debate for his sister's wedding is entirely reasonable. Not returning after the wedding for a late-evening vote is another matter.
I dont know what weddings in your family are like but the late-evening bit is usually the fun part of our family weddings.
RT How stupid you are .. I am not a warmonger .. but you do not stop war if you walk away from the negotiating table and please tell me how much more anonymous I could be.. I am using my real name ..should I put my postal address up there as well . I will if everyone else does.. are you up for that?
"Nick Clegg has said that he cannot “foresee any circumstances” in which the Government could return to Parliament for another vote on British military action in Syria."
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
Wedding reception surely. These twits don't expect us to believe they have weddings in the evenings when they are ducking their responsibilities do they?
My wedding was at 17.15. Since we don't know the facts in this case, it is entirely reasonable to suspect that it may have been late in the afternoon. Even if it was 14.00, getting from Devon to London may have been difficult given the ceremonies can take a while. If he had arrived at 20.00, you would be accusing him of voting after not having heard the debates.
We don't know the full facts. Even if it was an 11.00 wedding, I can understand why he would want to celebrate with his sister.
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
Missing the debate for his sister's wedding is entirely reasonable. Not returning after the wedding for a late-evening vote is another matter.
I dont know what weddings in your family are like but the late-evening bit is usually the fun part of our family weddings.
Given it was in North West Devon, getting back for the vote might have been a challenge in any case.....
RT How stupid you are .. I am not a warmonger .. but you do not stop war if you walk away from the negotiating table and please tell me how much more anonymous I could be.. I am using my real name ..should I put my postal address up there as well . I will if everyone else does.. are you up for that?
I have always posted under my own name and been critical of anyone who posts anonymously and then hides behind that anonymity to make attacks on people. I reckon if you have any computer skills at all it would take about a minute to find out exactly who I am, where I live and what I do for a living - if of course I hadn't already made all of that common knowledge on here.
On the more substantive point, you don't stop a war by sitting hundreds of miles away and throwing a few missiles in. It has never worked before and it won't work now. The idiocy of people who follow the mantra of 'something must be done' without actually thinking through the practicalities and consequences is staggering.
If it were not for the fact that innocent people will die and we will screw up the region for decades to come, I almost wish you could go ahead and have your idiotic war so you could then see the consequences of your moronic warmongering.
RT How stupid you are .. I am not a warmonger .. but you do not stop war if you walk away from the negotiating table and please tell me how much more anonymous I could be.. I am using my real name ..should I put my postal address up there as well . I will if everyone else does.. are you up for that?
I have always posted under my own name and been critical of anyone who posts anonymously and then hides behind that anonymity to make attacks on people. I reckon if you have any computer skills at all it would take about a minute to find out exactly who I am, where I live and what I do for a living - if of course I hadn't already made all of that common knowledge on here.
On the more substantive point, you don't stop a war by sitting hundreds of miles away and throwing a few missiles in. It has never worked before and it won't work now. The idiocy of people who follow the mantra of 'something must be done' without actually thinking through the practicalities and consequences is staggering.
If it were not for the fact that innocent people will die and we will screw up the region for decades to come, I almost wish you could go ahead and have your idiotic war so you could then see the consequences of your moronic warmongering.
As a matter of interest, have you read the posts I placed earlier outlining my thinking on Syria? Do you have any reaction to them?
"All too often, it is only when someone dies that people suddenly publicly discover that individual’s many virtues. That is almost certainly the case with Sir David Frost, the broadcaster and media mogul who died at the weekend. For although he was a legendary media personality, he was persistently dismissed as a lightweight interviewer. He was scorned for bowling his guests only the softest of interrogatory balls, and derided for becoming an establishment toady, as unctuous as his lifestyle was grand.
Nevertheless, it was Frost who, in 1977, pulled off what was arguably the greatest coup in interviewing history when he got the disgraced former U.S. President Richard Nixon to admit his culpability in the Watergate scandal and that he had ‘let down the country’. This encounter has passed into broadcasting legend. It became the most- watched political interview ever, attracting 45 million viewers; gave rise to books and articles; and was immortalised in the stage play and subsequent film, Frost/Nixon.
On that occasion, Frost had asked him such hilariously open-goal questions as: ‘Are there any essentially American characteristics?’; ‘For an American today, what can the dream or goal be?’; and (gloriously) ‘This is a vast question, I know, but at root, what would you say that people are on Earth for?’ How folk chortled. But more thoughtful observers, noted Reston, had spotted that, lulled into a false sense of security, Nixon had been far more personally and politically revealing than he would otherwise have been.
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
Wedding reception surely. These twits don't expect us to believe they have weddings in the evenings when they are ducking their responsibilities do they?
My wedding was at 17.15. Since we don't know the facts in this case, it is entirely reasonable to suspect that it may have been late in the afternoon. Even if it was 14.00, getting from Devon to London may have been difficult given the ceremonies can take a while. If he had arrived at 20.00, you would be accusing him of voting after not having heard the debates.
We don't know the full facts. Even if it was an 11.00 wedding, I can understand why he would want to celebrate with his sister.
We can all understand why he wanted to go to a piss up rather than do his job, but it's not really the point.
I can understand why he would want to support his sister and his family on such an important day in their lives. Now, I don't know whether he could have got back in time, but I'm willing to cut him a little slack based on the personal importance of a family wedding.
In the past you have indicated that you have children (apologies if I have that wrong). What events would keep you away from the wedding of one of them? Or would you move heaven and earth to be there? If you have siblings, the same question applies.
FPT, the three groups the Nazis failed to make much of a breakthrough with were political Catholics, due to anti-clericalism, working class voters in big cities, who were strongly committed to SPD and KPD, and the upper-classes, who were put off by their violence, anti-semitism, and anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Working class voters in smaller cities and rural areas supported the Nazis in droves.
One can only wonder the scope of Nazi support from these groups if there had been an election in the 1935-1938 period. IMO the NSPAD would have polled very heavily outwith any dubious interventions.
I'm sure that at any point up to Spring 1945, Hitler would have won a landslide victory in any free election for President/Fuhrer of Germany. The Nazi Party itself was far less popular, and might never have won an overall majority.
I did read them all JJ. I was considering a long response to the last part particularly but then kind of lost the will.
On one of your last points I think that there is perhaps a bit of desperation to try and claim that if it turns out the chemical weapons were in fact deployed by the rebels we should still hold Assad responsible and go through with punishment. By that measure should we not also be punishing the British for legally exporting the chemicals to Syria that can be used to make the weapons?
It seems that the need to find some way of laying the blame for this on Assad in the event his forces didn't actually use the weapons has gone way beyond what could be considered reasonable. After all Assad can hardly be held responsible for the actions of those who are trying to destroy him (beyond of course the obvious blame for having behaved in such a manner as to incite them to fight in the first place)
I would also point out that people like General Dannatt have been making it clear that any limited feeling of satisfaction from having punished Assad should be weighed against the fact that strikes will make any chance of a settlement to the civil war overall far more difficult to achieve. In the end there is perhaps the question to be asked as to which is more important, upholding international law or saving lives - and a realisation that the two may, in this case, actually be incompatible.
"Missing the debate for his sister's wedding is entirely reasonable."
It depends what your priorities are. If this thing is about saving babies lives as we are told it is then his decision was inexcusable. It just adds to the sense that Cameron is leading a party of dilettantes.
"Missing the debate for his sister's wedding is entirely reasonable."
It depends what your priorities are. If this thing is about saving babies lives as we are told it is then his decision was inexcusable. It just adds to the sense that Cameron is leading a party of dilettantes.
Yes - how silly of his sister to hold her wedding in the middle of a crisis.
RT.. show me a post where I have advocated bombing Syria...it may take you some time. We do not have one jot of influence on the Syrian issue because of the vote on Thursday,nothing ,nada, zilch,zero..Thanks Ed. Maybe you should just try to read what people are actually posting without pre judging. You said I posted anonymously.. can you explain why you said that..
Markit Economics @MarkitEconomics RT@ReutersJamie Up, up, and... away? PMIs show Europe continues to recover, and no blue Monday for UK's new orders: reut.rs/17ukqp0
FPT, the three groups the Nazis failed to make much of a breakthrough with were political Catholics, due to anti-clericalism, working class voters in big cities, who were strongly committed to SPD and KPD, and the upper-classes, who were put off by their violence, anti-semitism, and anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Working class voters in smaller cities and rural areas supported the Nazis in droves.
One can only wonder the scope of Nazi support from these groups if there had been an election in the 1935-1938 period. IMO the NSPAD would have polled very heavily outwith any dubious interventions.
I'm sure that at any point up to Spring 1945, Hitler would have won a landslide victory in any free election for President/Fuhrer of Germany. The Nazi Party itself was far less popular, and might never have won an overall majority.
Interesting point Sean however it's surely difficult to decouple Hitler from the NSPAD, the more so as time marched on.
I'll take a look at the numbers for party/Presidential elections from the early 1930's.
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk.
"wouldn't alter the result"
Well I guess that applies to all the MP's who couldn't be arsed voting, couldn't hear the bell etc when taken on an individual level So Cameron half recalled parliament "for those who could be arsed" then lost his own vote by a few votes but that's OK, no one individual would've changed it.
Coming next week - its Rory Stewarts fault that the Syrian kid's are dying. Just as well Lee Rigby wasn't a Con supporter or it would no doubt be his fault too for not being available for action.
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk.
"wouldn't alter the result"
Well I guess that applies to all the MS who couldn't be arsed voting, couldn't hear the bell etc when taken on an individual level So Cameron half recalled parliament "for those who could be arsed" then lost his own vote.
There's a deal of difference as you well know between those who "couldn't hear the bell", those who failed to return and Stewart's deliberate decision to support his sister.
Jump on another hobby horse "tim", you're are yet again making a complete arse of yourself on this one !!
I did read them all JJ. I was considering a long response to the last part particularly but then kind of lost the will.
On one of your last points I think that there is perhaps a bit of desperation to try and claim that if it turns out the chemical weapons were in fact deployed by the rebels we should still hold Assad responsible and go through with punishment. By that measure should we not also be punishing the British for legally exporting the chemicals to Syria that can be used to make the weapons?
It seems that the need to find some way of laying the blame for this on Assad in the event his forces didn't actually use the weapons has gone way beyond what could be considered reasonable. After all Assad can hardly be held responsible for the actions of those who are trying to destroy him (beyond of course the obvious blame for having behaved in such a manner as to incite them to fight in the first place)
I would also point out that people like General Dannatt have been making it clear that any limited feeling of satisfaction from having punished Assad should be weighed against the fact that strikes will make any chance of a settlement to the civil war overall far more difficult to achieve. In the end there is perhaps the question to be asked as to which is more important, upholding international law or saving lives - and a realisation that the two may, in this case, actually be incompatible.
Not desperation at all. If countries have WMD, it is their responsibility to ensure they do not fall into the hands of third parties who may use them. If not, it would be easy for a regime to say they didn't launch an attack because they handed them over to an 'independent' third party who then launched the attack 'unknown' the the primary. It'd be a hideous way of abstracting responsibility.
I would have thought that was obvious.
And where did I mention punishing Assad in my posts? Don't create a strawman. My position is clear: we must strongly discourage further use of these hideous weapons. If you agree with that laudable aim, how do you intend to do it?
The risks - and I give both sides - are severe to both action and inaction. It'd be good if you would at least admit that, even if you think the risks of inaction are less.
RT ..Hiding behind their anonymity ..,just a few, there will be more..tim..The union Divvie.. Ash..Ben M..Pork..Roger..Decrepic John l.. Surbiton.. Southam Observer
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk."
I don't agree at all. I missed my brothers wedding because I was working. I had a responsibility to the many people I was working with and I knew that my brother's wedding could take place without me which the job couldn't. It was a regret but not everything falls as you would wish. An uncharacteristically partisan post Jack.
If votes on war and peace are too often at once every few years then maybe he's in the wrong job. Although if you've ducked a vote on the use of military force to go to an evening do then it's probably best not to write about how much you care about the issue.
Answer the question: what would you have done? Would you have missed the wedding or reception of any notional children or siblings of yours?
And we don't know if he could have made it back for the vote. It's at least four and a half hours from Barnstaple to London (I'm using Barnstaple as a convenient location in Northwest Devon - I've no idea if it was there). And that's not counting for traffic on the M5 and M25.
RT ..Hiding behind their anonymity ..,just a few, there will be more..tim..The union Divvie.. Ash..Ben M..Pork..Roger..Decrepic John l.. Surbiton.. Southam Observer
Yep and I have been critical of them in the past as well. Funny how you have only picked the left leaning posters to highlight. Even funnier when you seem to think you are making a point to me even though I am on the right. Of course none of them have been quite so outlandish or offensive in the personal attacks on other posters as you have over this particular issue.
@Jack - The last Presidential election was in 1932 and the incumbent Hindenburg was re-elected (albeit on a second ballot) with about 55% to Hitler's 45%
Even in March 1933 after Hitler had become Chancellor and the Reichstag set on fire (leading to emergency decrees that effectively removed all civil liberties and suppressed the Communist Party, the Nazis managed to poll only 43%.
But they were able to secure a 2/3 majority in the Reichstag for the so-called Enabling Law (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich - Law to remove the Distress of People and State) that gave the Government powers to legislate by decree without recourse to Parliament and which could deviate from the constitution.
Funny enough Hitler was a stickler for formal legal procedure and the Act was renewed in 1937 and 1941 by the Reichstag when it was made permanent for the duration of the war.
DT Readers aren't impressed by Mr Hodges' desire for intervention.
Frank Fisher 39 Likes
Roll up roll up, get your warmongering propaganda here folks. Get it while it's hot - it's got obfuscation, it's got rewriting of history, it's got strawmen and groundshifting. Feel the quality - harking back to the good old days of 2003, when everybody believed everything, or at least were paid to say that they did. You want human shredders? we've got them, and cheap. You want dead babies? Here they are, tossed out of incubators or juggled on the end of german bayonets. There's terror ships and yellowcake, nerve gas and superguns - all going soon. 45 minutes left, roll up, roll up!
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk."
I don't agree at all. I missed my brothers wedding because I was working. I had a responsibility to the many people I was working with and I knew that my brother's wedding could take place without me which the job couldn't. It was a regret but not everything falls as you would wish. An uncharacteristically partisan post Jack.
I assume you knew about your brother's wedding for months before the date? Could you not shift your work around to fit in the wedding?
Stewart didn't know about the vote until a few days before, by which time arrangements will have been made and promises given.
Families are complex entities. I would not have missed either of my sibling's weddings for the world, and indeed I did have to reorganise some things to fit them in.
Not desperation at all. If countries have WMD, it is their responsibility to ensure they do not fall into the hands of third parties who may use them. If not, it would be easy for a regime to say they didn't launch an attack because they handed them over to an 'independent' third party who then launched the attack 'unknown' the the primary. It'd be a hideous way of abstracting responsibility.
I would have thought that was obvious.
And where did I mention punishing Assad in my posts? Don't create a strawman. My position is clear: we must strongly discourage further use of these hideous weapons. If you agree with that laudable aim, how do you intend to do it?
The risks - and I give both sides - are severe to both action and inaction. It'd be good if you would at least admit that, even if you think the risks of inaction are less.
Surely if you are taking it to that extreme then that same responsibility also extends to the countries who are selling Syria the chemicals to make the weapons even long after the Civil War had started.
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk.
"wouldn't alter the result"
Well I guess that applies to all the MS who couldn't be arsed voting, couldn't hear the bell etc when taken on an individual level So Cameron half recalled parliament "for those who could be arsed" then lost his own vote.
There's a deal of difference as you well know between those who "couldn't hear the bell", those who failed to return and Stewart's deliberate decision to support his sister.
Jump on another hobby horse "tim", you're are yet again making a complete arse of yourself on this one !!
I do sympathise with RS, but I would expect to return to work for an issue of such significance.
What is genuinely odd though, given that so many MPs were "committed", surely the PM should have held the debate on Monday.
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk.
"wouldn't alter the result"
Well I guess that applies to all the MS who couldn't be arsed voting, couldn't hear the bell etc when taken on an individual level So Cameron half recalled parliament "for those who could be arsed" then lost his own vote.
There's a deal of difference as you well know between those who "couldn't hear the bell", those who failed to return and Stewart's deliberate decision to support his sister.
Jump on another hobby horse "tim", you're are yet again making a complete arse of yourself on this one !!
He shouldn't have missed the vote. It's his effing job. None of them should have missed it in particular those who were in the building at the time. As for the solipsistic muppets that actually voted against, words fail me.
But the issue remains: yes, Cam c*cked up by recalling early, not whipping properly/misjudging the mood of his backbenchers and not setting out earlier his clear intent (ie limited police action against a violation of international law).
But....
EdM by saying one thing to Cam and then, on account of shadow cabinet pressure doing something else, and delivering a dog's dinner of a speech which, it was transparently obvious, even he didn't believe, has endangered Britain's standing in the world and sent a message to tyrants that it is OK to use chemical weapons.
That is by far the more egregious error and is not OK.
I don't care whether people use their real names or not. In most cases they wouldn't mean any more to anyone if they did. What I object to are posters who change their usernames. We all build up a posting history and people who just ditch it and become someone else are the ones I have a problem with.
This criticism is from tim .. who flew into a rage when his children left the lights burning in the West wing or was it the East wing ..so many wings in these country mansions. Funny things..families.
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk.
"wouldn't alter the result"
Well I guess that applies to all the MS who couldn't be arsed voting, couldn't hear the bell etc when taken on an individual level So Cameron half recalled parliament "for those who could be arsed" then lost his own vote.
There's a deal of difference as you well know between those who "couldn't hear the bell", those who failed to return and Stewart's deliberate decision to support his sister.
Jump on another hobby horse "tim", you're are yet again making a complete arse of yourself on this one !!
I do sympathise with RS, but I would expect to return to work for an issue of such significance.
What is genuinely odd though, given that so many MPs were "committed", surely the PM should have held the debate on Monday.
Not filled with sympathy for Rory. Last October after the helicopter crash we had no way of getting people on and off the rig for several weeks and one of the Stewardesses missed her own wedding. She was not happy. :-(
Others missed funerals and holidays but I think she was about he worst we had.
You are far too busy on your own wedding day to notice whether any one given person is there or not (other than the other party to the marriage). Would sis have said no if he had requested leave of absence for this vote?
1."I can come to the wedding but I'll have to leave before the evening do as I have a matter of war and peace to vote on." 2."Cannot make the vote on war and peace because I have an evening do to go to, however I shall spend the next few weeks ponificating about how important the issue of war and peace in Syria is"
Choose 2. and get PB Tory support.
you were on firmer ground attacking Cameron's odd decision to rush the vote, RS is simply a casualty of that. if Cameron called the vote early for no real reason he's a total tit and deserved to lose. If on the other hand it was spearheading the issue for Obama then Ed's the one with the problem.
Not desperation at all. If countries have WMD, it is their responsibility to ensure they do not fall into the hands of third parties who may use them. If not, it would be easy for a regime to say they didn't launch an attack because they handed them over to an 'independent' third party who then launched the attack 'unknown' the the primary. It'd be a hideous way of abstracting responsibility.
I would have thought that was obvious.
And where did I mention punishing Assad in my posts? Don't create a strawman. My position is clear: we must strongly discourage further use of these hideous weapons. If you agree with that laudable aim, how do you intend to do it?
The risks - and I give both sides - are severe to both action and inaction. It'd be good if you would at least admit that, even if you think the risks of inaction are less.
Surely if you are taking it to that extreme then that same responsibility also extends to the countries who are selling Syria the chemicals to make the weapons even long after the Civil War had started.
And the Independent article says it all - cock-up in export controls for multi-use chemicals. Multi-use legislation on export controls is extremely complex, as has been discussed passim.
And the link between these chemicals (which did not get in) and the attacks are? I think you'll find nothing. It was a big mistake, and one which hopefully will not be repeated. In fact, I'm surprised we were exporting anything to the Syrian government as late as last year.
We need to know why it happened and the timings.
So I ask: what do you think are the risks of your (totally understandable) position of non-intervention?
On the Rory Stewart thing do we actually know how he'd have voted? I get the point about driving back to vote, but would you drive back to parliament to abstain?
The underlying problem here is that people have to be in parliament to vote in a division, which may have made sense before the invention of modern communication technologies like the telegram, but is now just a way of burning a load of needless carbon.
On the Rory Stewart thing do we actually know how he'd have voted? I get the point about driving back to vote, but would you drive back to parliament to abstain?
The underlying problem here is that people have to be in parliament to vote in a division, which may have made sense before the invention of modern communication technologies like the telegram, but is now just a way of burning a load of needless carbon.
I think it's important people show their face. Not sure we want a "click here for War" democracy.
Not desperation at all. If countries have WMD, it is their responsibility to ensure they do not fall into the hands of third parties who may use them. If not, it would be easy for a regime to say they didn't launch an attack because they handed them over to an 'independent' third party who then launched the attack 'unknown' the the primary. It'd be a hideous way of abstracting responsibility.
I would have thought that was obvious.
And where did I mention punishing Assad in my posts? Don't create a strawman. My position is clear: we must strongly discourage further use of these hideous weapons. If you agree with that laudable aim, how do you intend to do it?
The risks - and I give both sides - are severe to both action and inaction. It'd be good if you would at least admit that, even if you think the risks of inaction are less.
Surely if you are taking it to that extreme then that same responsibility also extends to the countries who are selling Syria the chemicals to make the weapons even long after the Civil War had started.
And the Independent article says it all - cock-up in export controls for multi-use chemicals. Multi-use legislation on export controls is extremely complex, as has been discussed passim.
And the link between these chemicals (which did not get in) and the attacks are? I think you'll find nothing. It was a big mistake, and one which hopefully will not be repeated. In fact, I'm surprised we were exporting anything to the Syrian government as late as last year.
We need to know why it happened and the timings.
So I ask: what do you think are the risks of your (totally understandable) position of non-intervention?
Sodium fluoride or it derivatives is commonly found in toothpaste and tap water.
Potassium fluoride can be used to etch glass or as a chemical intermediary.
On the Rory Stewart thing do we actually know how he'd have voted? I get the point about driving back to vote, but would you drive back to parliament to abstain?
The underlying problem here is that people have to be in parliament to vote in a division, which may have made sense before the invention of modern communication technologies like the telegram, but is now just a way of burning a load of needless carbon.
There used to be a policy of pairing for people who couldn't make votes, has that died out ?
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk."
I don't agree at all. I missed my brothers wedding because I was working. I had a responsibility to the many people I was working with and I knew that my brother's wedding could take place without me which the job couldn't. It was a regret but not everything falls as you would wish. An uncharacteristically partisan post Jack.
Absolute pish and tish Roger.
Presumably you had little or no notice of your brothers wedding else a competent deputy might have held sway for you ? .... You also have responsibilities to your brother and extended family.
In Stewart's case the wedding was almost sabotaged for him by the short notice of the debate. He most correctly put his sister first and frankly any loving brother would !!
1."I can come to the wedding but I'll have to leave before the evening do as I have a matter of war and peace to vote on." 2."Cannot make the vote on war and peace because I have an evening do to go to, however I shall spend the next few weeks ponificating about how important the issue of war and peace in Syria is"
Choose 2. and get PB Tory support.
you were on firmer ground attacking Cameron's odd decision to rush the vote, RS is simply a casualty of that. if Cameron called the vote early for no real reason he's a total tit and deserved to lose. If on the other hand it was spearheading the issue for Obama then Ed's the one with the problem.
Cameron didnt recall Parliament fully though did he, I suspect the twits in Downing Street told the twits in the Whips Office that they had the numbers when they didn't have a clue. So there were MP's at pissups, MP's on yachts and countless other ones told they weren't needed, let alone the pair in the cupboard.
Of course, he should and could have managed it better, it's amazing to think how little he has prepared the way. However Miliband isn't exactly coming out of this smelling of roses either, if he led HMG in the wrong direction just for a headline he's as big a tit as Cameron. Ben Bradshaw's flip flop was is just jaw dropping and as I write Tessa Jowell is digging Ed's hole even deeper.
On the Rory Stewart thing do we actually know how he'd have voted? I get the point about driving back to vote, but would you drive back to parliament to abstain?
The underlying problem here is that people have to be in parliament to vote in a division, which may have made sense before the invention of modern communication technologies like the telegram, but is now just a way of burning a load of needless carbon.
I think it's important people show their face. Not sure we want a "click here for War" democracy.
But if we want to make sure they're engaged in the vote we could have them upload a 3-minute clip explaining their vote. That would give you a lot more accountability than they've got now.
Ishmael X .Surely the person to ask is his Sister..What are your priorites.. Family, Country, Friends?
Yes, hence my question about what she would have said.
You are getting incoherent even by your standards, I thought Rory's failure to tip up and vote for the government had inevitably resulted in 1000s of dead babies?
On the Rory Stewart thing do we actually know how he'd have voted? I get the point about driving back to vote, but would you drive back to parliament to abstain?
The underlying problem here is that people have to be in parliament to vote in a division, which may have made sense before the invention of modern communication technologies like the telegram, but is now just a way of burning a load of needless carbon.
There used to be a policy of pairing for people who couldn't make votes, has that died out ?
IIRC Nick Palmer posted about this a while back and said it had pretty much broken down because of trust issues. The trust problem seems like something that could be fixed with some fairly simple tracking / reputation technology.
"UK manufacturing is "booming again", according to a survey, with the sector seeing its strongest growth in activity for two and a half years in August."
This nonsense about Conservative absentees is a complete red herring.
It would have been even worse if the motion had narrowly passed; what was needed was cross-party consensus, which Cameron worked hard to get (and thought he had got), as in previous occasions over many decades.
Curious silence about absent Labour MPs, particularity a missing former PM and world statesman. His valuable experience as a senior cabinet member during the Iraq vote is an example to us all.
Who is the likely winner of The Dog Ate My Homework Award for Unbelievable Absences?
I can't get upset about Rory Stewart staying at his sister's wedding, it's about the only decent excuse among the lot of the no-shows. Its fun to see the political elite tearing themselves apart over this. It seems pretty clear that most of them actually wanted to be in the vanguard of the avenging force into Syria, but somehow, inexplicably, they fecked it up and got the wrong result! Its like politicos pushing and shoving to get some Olympian star dust last year, only this time they want to please Obama.
If they do contrive to have a second vote, we ought to rise up, grab our torches and pitchforks and roll into London.
Mr. Stopper, if nothing new emerges I agree, but if there's substantial new evidence or further attacks that's a different kettle of fish.
I share your instinctive loathing of copying the EU trick (ironic Clegg's against it) of asking the question repeatedly until the 'right' answer is given. Happily the Government seems to have decided to accept the will of Parliament.
@Alanbrooke Agreed. A week is a long time in politics. First there was a clamour for Cameron to recall Parliament before backing any military action in Syria, which he did, now there is criticism that he should not have rushed to do so and instead he should have waited. We don't know what exact timetable the US was working to on military action in Syria last week, but we do now know that something changed and Obama has now delayed any action until after Congress has voted. One thing we do now know, Parliament voting against any strong response from the UK on Syria has had far wider implications here and abroad than was first realised.
On Rory Stewart attending his own sister's wedding, its pretty desperate to see such focus and criticism being attached to one backbencher when you look at the behaviour of the LotO last week. If Ed Miliband had given a written undertaking to attend a wedding last week, I wouldn't have taken that as evidence he would actually turn up at the event when neither he or his Shadow Cabinet put much store in him being seen to keep his word to even the PM on such important issues such as Syria. Ed Miliband and the Labour party playing party politics have left us without any response at all to the Assad regime using chemical weapons on civilians, every time the news plays that Government defeat in the HoC's we will hear some on the Labour benches cheering the news.
The sight of the Labour party trying to criticise Cameron for losing that vote when they too voted against it as their own Leader was too weak to stand up to a handful in his own Shadow Cabinet after giving his word to Cameron is nauseating. And the fact that now some of Britain's closest allies will not see Miliband as a future PM that can be regarded as trustworthy is very damaging for him on a personal level. The Shadow Cabinet are currently doing a very good job of neutering any signs of Miliband becoming a Statesman without any help from their opponents.
Ishmael X ..You asked PB'ers what his sister thought of it.. How the hell would they know. ...might as well ask the moon ..and you have the nerve to accuse someone of being incoherent ..sheesh
Mr. Stopper, if nothing new emerges I agree, but if there's substantial new evidence or further attacks that's a different kettle of fish.
I share your instinctive loathing of copying the EU trick (ironic Clegg's against it) of asking the question repeatedly until the 'right' answer is given. Happily the Government seems to have decided to accept the will of Parliament.
Dunno, on the merits I'm happy the thing went down, but it really seems like parliament failed to express the opinion it had because between them they cocked up the procedure. Depending what you think of the Labour motion, it was either substantially identical to the Tory one or had more barriers to action, but still advocated more action than they ended up with, since they ended up with none.
The government declined the Labour amendment and put their own one to a vote because they thought they could force it through on their own, but once it turned out they'd miscalculated the obvious way to find out the opinion of parliament would have been to put the Labour motion to a vote and see if parliament preferred that to nothing.
This nonsense about Conservative absentees is a complete red herring.
It would have been even worse if the motion had narrowly passed; what was needed was cross-party consensus, which Cameron worked hard to get (and thought he had got), as in previous occasions over many decades.
So we have just witnessed a near-perfect whipping operation?
Rory clearly has strong feelings on the sanctity of marriage:
@Alanbrooke Agreed. A week is a long time in politics. First there was a clamour for Cameron to recall Parliament before backing any military action in Syria, which he did, now there is criticism that he should not have rushed to do so and instead he should have waited. We don't know what exact timetable the US was working to on military action in Syria last week, but we do now know that something changed and Obama has now delayed any action until after Congress has voted. One thing we do now know, Parliament voting against any strong response from the UK on Syria has had far wider implications here and abroad than was first realised.
On Rory Stewart attending his own sister's wedding, its pretty desperate to see such focus and criticism being attached to one backbencher when you look at the behaviour of the LotO last week. If Ed Miliband had given a written undertaking to attend a wedding last week, I wouldn't have taken that as evidence he would actually turn up at the event when neither he or his Shadow Cabinet put much store in him being seen to keep his word to even the PM on such important issues such as Syria. Ed Miliband and the Labour party playing party politics have left us without any response at all to the Assad regime using chemical weapons on civilians, every time the news plays that Government defeat in the HoC's we will hear some on the Labour benches cheering the news.
The sight of the Labour party trying to criticise Cameron for losing that vote when they too voted against it as their own Leader was too weak to stand up to a handful in his own Shadow Cabinet after giving his word to Cameron is nauseating. And the fact that now some of Britain's closest allies will not see Miliband as a future PM that can be regarded as trustworthy is very damaging for him on a personal level. The Shadow Cabinet are currently doing a very good job of neutering any signs of Miliband becoming a Statesman without any help from their opponents.
listening to the DP debate Ming Campbell and Cheryl Gillan both appear to be convinced the vote was rushed as Cameron had some kind of agreement with Obama to step up pressure before the weekend. They're all convinced including the interviewer that Miliband did an about turn just before the vote. It's looking like Miliband has cocked up the Western approach, really he'd have been better abstaining rather than voting against.
An advisory body has told the Catalan Government that the best moment to call a referendum on Catalan independence spreads between late August and December 2014, taking into account the fact that it is desirable that the vote does not coincide with any other election. The recommendation also says that the question should be "clear" and the result should be "easy to implement". In the light of this, the body advises to ask a "yes-no" question on whether citizens want Catalonia to become an independent state.
The Catalan Government received these recommendations yesterday from the Advisory Council for the National Transition (CATN, Catalan acronym), a body that was established in February 2013 with the aim of analyzing which legal means can be used to call a guarantee-based referendum. The CATN is mainly made up of university professors.
The two main parties of the Catalan Parliament (centre-right Convergence and Union, CiU, and centre-left Republican Left, ERC) agreed in December 2012 to hold a referendum in 2014. Ecosocialist Initiative for Catalonia (ICV) and democratic socialist Popular Unity Candidates (CUP) also back the holding of a referendum. Those four parties hold 87 out of 135 seats in the Catalan Parliament. On the other hand, centre-left Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSC) says the referendum should only be held if the Spanish authorities agree to. Spanish nationalist Popular Party (PP) and Citizens (C's) reject the referendum.
The government declined the Labour amendment and put their own one to a vote because they thought they could force it through on their own, but once it turned out they'd miscalculated the obvious way to find out the opinion of parliament would have been to put the Labour motion to a vote and see if parliament preferred that to nothing.
That's not how it works, though. It would be procedurally impossible.
Anyway, you've got the chronology the wrong way round. It was open to Labour to vote in favour of the government motion (or abstain, of course), once their own amendment had failed, if they preferred it to nothing. They chose not to, so presumably they preferred nothing.
The government declined the Labour amendment and put their own one to a vote because they thought they could force it through on their own, but once it turned out they'd miscalculated the obvious way to find out the opinion of parliament would have been to put the Labour motion to a vote and see if parliament preferred that to nothing.
That's not how it works, though. It would be procedurally impossible.
Anyway, you've got the chronology the wrong way round. It was open to Labour to vote in favour of the government motion (or abstain, of course), once their own amendment had failed, if they preferred it to nothing. They chose not to, so presumably they preferred nothing.
Are you taking the view that the motions were the same or are you taking the view that the Labour one had a higher hurdle to bombing?
Re Hague . i think he muct have come close to resigning in the aftermath and may still do so. I thought it strange that Osbourne was sent out nightwatchman like to bat in the media about the Syria vote rather than Hague (who is ultra reliable for playing a straight bat at interviews)
Comments
There are of course Labour figures reported to be seeking another vote, but, as I said, it won't happen.
As for Ed M, of course he doesn't want another vote. As you say, it would split his party. In addition, it would show up his silly games last week even more starkly.
" NEARLY 300 foreign crooks dodged deportation last year — by arguing it would breach their human rights.
The rate of offenders using the loophole nearly doubled on the previous year despite Government pressure on judges to get tougher. Home Office stats show 299 “foreign national offenders” won appeals citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — right to a family life. Over the previous 12 months, 177 succeeded.
In February, Home Secretary Theresa May warned Britain’s streets were being made more dangerous by immigration judges failing to kick out criminals. Last week it emerged Sanel Sahbaz, a Bosnian living in Hertford, had won his appeal against deportation thanks to Article 8. His offences since 2005 include common assault, handling stolen goods, assaulting a police officer and theft.
What's missing is any voting intention polls before and after.
Hague will almost certainly stay on until 2015 - why wouldn't he? He's proving to be a very good Foreign Sec, and it seems (as far as one can tell these things from the outside) a job which he loves. There's even less reason to suppose Cameron would want to move him.
Therefore, I'd have thought any potential value in this market relates to the post-2015 period. I'm not sure, though, that the 4/1 on Douglas Alexander is particularly good value; the probability here is what you get by multiplying together the probabilities of:
- Hague remaining until the next election
- The next government being Labour-led
- Douglas Alexander getting the gig in that government
Unlike the position of Ed Balls - which looks unassailable - I don't think that Douglas Alexander is guaranteed to keep his current brief in a Miliband-led government; they don't seem particularly close politically, Alexander is not particularly a specialist in Foreign Affairs, and there's even the possibility that the next government might contain LibDems, who (depending on the arithmetic) might have ambitions to grab the Foreign Sec role.
Let's say .9 x .5 x .5 = 22.5%.
That's not enough margin on a 4/1 (20% probability) bet. No bet.
"All too often, it is only when someone dies that people suddenly publicly discover that individual’s many virtues. That is almost certainly the case with Sir David Frost, the broadcaster and media mogul who died at the weekend. For although he was a legendary media personality, he was persistently dismissed as a lightweight interviewer. He was scorned for bowling his guests only the softest of interrogatory balls, and derided for becoming an establishment toady, as unctuous as his lifestyle was grand.
Nevertheless, it was Frost who, in 1977, pulled off what was arguably the greatest coup in interviewing history when he got the disgraced former U.S. President Richard Nixon to admit his culpability in the Watergate scandal and that he had ‘let down the country’. This encounter has passed into broadcasting legend. It became the most- watched political interview ever, attracting 45 million viewers; gave rise to books and articles; and was immortalised in the stage play and subsequent film, Frost/Nixon.
On that occasion, Frost had asked him such hilariously open-goal questions as: ‘Are there any essentially American characteristics?’; ‘For an American today, what can the dream or goal be?’; and (gloriously) ‘This is a vast question, I know, but at root, what would you say that people are on Earth for?’ How folk chortled. But more thoughtful observers, noted Reston, had spotted that, lulled into a false sense of security, Nixon had been far more personally and politically revealing than he would otherwise have been.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2408562/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-A-rapier-steel-blanket-bonhomie-What-bully-boys-broadcasting-today-learn-Frost.html#ixzz2dj5Q03r3
Judging from random conversations I've had in the last four days in three separate parts of the country, and the national polls, "thanks ed, nice one" is the view out there in the country.
It's a shame he couldn't be present for the debate on the day (I will leave his excuse on the table as unproved but understandable - I wouldn't have wanted to miss my sister's wedding).
I will if everyone else does.. are you up for that?
"Nick Clegg has said that he cannot “foresee any circumstances” in which the Government could return to Parliament for another vote on British military action in Syria."
Is that what they call getting in first?
We don't know the full facts. Even if it was an 11.00 wedding, I can understand why he would want to celebrate with his sister.
On the more substantive point, you don't stop a war by sitting hundreds of miles away and throwing a few missiles in. It has never worked before and it won't work now. The idiocy of people who follow the mantra of 'something must be done' without actually thinking through the practicalities and consequences is staggering.
If it were not for the fact that innocent people will die and we will screw up the region for decades to come, I almost wish you could go ahead and have your idiotic war so you could then see the consequences of your moronic warmongering.
He didn't get the better of England's finest politician though
The smart money there says this week or wait til October
In the past you have indicated that you have children (apologies if I have that wrong). What events would keep you away from the wedding of one of them? Or would you move heaven and earth to be there? If you have siblings, the same question applies.
On one of your last points I think that there is perhaps a bit of desperation to try and claim that if it turns out the chemical weapons were in fact deployed by the rebels we should still hold Assad responsible and go through with punishment. By that measure should we not also be punishing the British for legally exporting the chemicals to Syria that can be used to make the weapons?
It seems that the need to find some way of laying the blame for this on Assad in the event his forces didn't actually use the weapons has gone way beyond what could be considered reasonable. After all Assad can hardly be held responsible for the actions of those who are trying to destroy him (beyond of course the obvious blame for having behaved in such a manner as to incite them to fight in the first place)
I would also point out that people like General Dannatt have been making it clear that any limited feeling of satisfaction from having punished Assad should be weighed against the fact that strikes will make any chance of a settlement to the civil war overall far more difficult to achieve. In the end there is perhaps the question to be asked as to which is more important, upholding international law or saving lives - and a realisation that the two may, in this case, actually be incompatible.
"Missing the debate for his sister's wedding is entirely reasonable."
It depends what your priorities are. If this thing is about saving babies lives as we are told it is then his decision was inexcusable. It just adds to the sense that Cameron is leading a party of dilettantes.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk.
We do not have one jot of influence on the Syrian issue because of the vote on Thursday,nothing ,nada, zilch,zero..Thanks Ed.
Maybe you should just try to read what people are actually posting without pre judging.
You said I posted anonymously.. can you explain why you said that..
RT@ReutersJamie Up, up, and... away? PMIs show Europe continues to recover, and no blue Monday for UK's new orders: reut.rs/17ukqp0
I'll take a look at the numbers for party/Presidential elections from the early 1930's.
Jump on another hobby horse "tim", you're are yet again making a complete arse of yourself on this one !!
I would have thought that was obvious.
And where did I mention punishing Assad in my posts? Don't create a strawman. My position is clear: we must strongly discourage further use of these hideous weapons. If you agree with that laudable aim, how do you intend to do it?
The risks - and I give both sides - are severe to both action and inaction. It'd be good if you would at least admit that, even if you think the risks of inaction are less.
Only in "tim world" would you place a vote in parliament that wouldn't alter the result above the love and support of a sibling.
Rory Stewart did right by his sister whilst "tim" is just engaging in the usual knee jerk response of a trolling jerk."
I don't agree at all. I missed my brothers wedding because I was working. I had a responsibility to the many people I was working with and I knew that my brother's wedding could take place without me which the job couldn't. It was a regret but not everything falls as you would wish. An uncharacteristically partisan post Jack.
And we don't know if he could have made it back for the vote. It's at least four and a half hours from Barnstaple to London (I'm using Barnstaple as a convenient location in Northwest Devon - I've no idea if it was there). And that's not counting for traffic on the M5 and M25.
6 grand pays for a lot of bubbly.
Even in March 1933 after Hitler had become Chancellor and the Reichstag set on fire (leading to emergency decrees that effectively removed all civil liberties and suppressed the Communist Party, the Nazis managed to poll only 43%.
But they were able to secure a 2/3 majority in the Reichstag for the so-called Enabling Law (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich - Law to remove the Distress of People and State) that gave the Government powers to legislate by decree without recourse to Parliament and which could deviate from the constitution.
Funny enough Hitler was a stickler for formal legal procedure and the Act was renewed in 1937 and 1941 by the Reichstag when it was made permanent for the duration of the war.
Frank Fisher 39 Likes
Roll up roll up, get your warmongering propaganda here folks. Get it while it's hot - it's got obfuscation, it's got rewriting of history, it's got strawmen and groundshifting. Feel the quality - harking back to the good old days of 2003, when everybody believed everything, or at least were paid to say that they did. You want human shredders? we've got them, and cheap. You want dead babies? Here they are, tossed out of incubators or juggled on the end of german bayonets. There's terror ships and yellowcake, nerve gas and superguns - all going soon. 45 minutes left, roll up, roll up!
Try not to puke folks. It's only your democracy being sold down the river, and strangers being obliterated in your name, with your taxes. Stay asleep. Watch X factor. Marry and reproduce. Obey. Consume. Obey. > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233805/labours-line-on-syria-can-now-be-summed-up-in-six-words-oh-god-what-have-we-done/#comment-1026194518
Stewart didn't know about the vote until a few days before, by which time arrangements will have been made and promises given.
Families are complex entities. I would not have missed either of my sibling's weddings for the world, and indeed I did have to reorganise some things to fit them in.
Step forward the UK.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html
Chris Deerin retweeted
9m
timd @timd
Nobel laureate “not very good”, writes Bad Sex Award winner: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthoma…
What is genuinely odd though, given that so many MPs were "committed", surely the PM should have held the debate on Monday.
But the issue remains: yes, Cam c*cked up by recalling early, not whipping properly/misjudging the mood of his backbenchers and not setting out earlier his clear intent (ie limited police action against a violation of international law).
But....
EdM by saying one thing to Cam and then, on account of shadow cabinet pressure doing something else, and delivering a dog's dinner of a speech which, it was transparently obvious, even he didn't believe, has endangered Britain's standing in the world and sent a message to tyrants that it is OK to use chemical weapons.
That is by far the more egregious error and is not OK.
I don't care whether people use their real names or not. In most cases they wouldn't mean any more to anyone if they did. What I object to are posters who change their usernames. We all build up a posting history and people who just ditch it and become someone else are the ones I have a problem with.
Funny things..families.
Others missed funerals and holidays but I think she was about he worst we had.
"Bad sex...."
Made me LOL!
And the Independent article says it all - cock-up in export controls for multi-use chemicals. Multi-use legislation on export controls is extremely complex, as has been discussed passim.
The chemicals concerned:
http://www.potassiumfluoride.com/uses.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride#Applications
And the link between these chemicals (which did not get in) and the attacks are? I think you'll find nothing. It was a big mistake, and one which hopefully will not be repeated. In fact, I'm surprised we were exporting anything to the Syrian government as late as last year.
We need to know why it happened and the timings.
So I ask: what do you think are the risks of your (totally understandable) position of non-intervention?
The underlying problem here is that people have to be in parliament to vote in a division, which may have made sense before the invention of modern communication technologies like the telegram, but is now just a way of burning a load of needless carbon.
Potassium fluoride can be used to etch glass or as a chemical intermediary.
Presumably you had little or no notice of your brothers wedding else a competent deputy might have held sway for you ? .... You also have responsibilities to your brother and extended family.
In Stewart's case the wedding was almost sabotaged for him by the short notice of the debate. He most correctly put his sister first and frankly any loving brother would !!
Huzzah for Rory Stewart
A bloody big raspberry for "tim" and you !!
You strangely have omitted the Labour MP's that were AWOL. A small oversight I'm sure !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart
But if we want to make sure they're engaged in the vote we could have them upload a 3-minute clip explaining their vote. That would give you a lot more accountability than they've got now.
You are getting incoherent even by your standards, I thought Rory's failure to tip up and vote for the government had inevitably resulted in 1000s of dead babies?
"UK manufacturing is "booming again", according to a survey, with the sector seeing its strongest growth in activity for two and a half years in August."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23925789
Thanks for the numbers old chap.
It would have been even worse if the motion had narrowly passed; what was needed was cross-party consensus, which Cameron worked hard to get (and thought he had got), as in previous occasions over many decades.
Curious silence about absent Labour MPs, particularity a missing former PM and world statesman. His valuable experience as a senior cabinet member during the Iraq vote is an example to us all.
Who is the likely winner of The Dog Ate My Homework Award for Unbelievable Absences?
I agree that Hague is likely to remain in place now. The time to leave was shortly after the vote.
Its fun to see the political elite tearing themselves apart over this. It seems pretty clear that most of them actually wanted to be in the vanguard of the avenging force into Syria, but somehow, inexplicably, they fecked it up and got the wrong result! Its like politicos pushing and shoving to get some Olympian star dust last year, only this time they want to please Obama.
If they do contrive to have a second vote, we ought to rise up, grab our torches and pitchforks and roll into London.
I share your instinctive loathing of copying the EU trick (ironic Clegg's against it) of asking the question repeatedly until the 'right' answer is given. Happily the Government seems to have decided to accept the will of Parliament.
On Rory Stewart attending his own sister's wedding, its pretty desperate to see such focus and criticism being attached to one backbencher when you look at the behaviour of the LotO last week. If Ed Miliband had given a written undertaking to attend a wedding last week, I wouldn't have taken that as evidence he would actually turn up at the event when neither he or his Shadow Cabinet put much store in him being seen to keep his word to even the PM on such important issues such as Syria. Ed Miliband and the Labour party playing party politics have left us without any response at all to the Assad regime using chemical weapons on civilians, every time the news plays that Government defeat in the HoC's we will hear some on the Labour benches cheering the news.
The sight of the Labour party trying to criticise Cameron for losing that vote when they too voted against it as their own Leader was too weak to stand up to a handful in his own Shadow Cabinet after giving his word to Cameron is nauseating. And the fact that now some of Britain's closest allies will not see Miliband as a future PM that can be regarded as trustworthy is very damaging for him on a personal level. The Shadow Cabinet are currently doing a very good job of neutering any signs of Miliband becoming a Statesman without any help from their opponents.
Yes there should be a populus poll out today.
I hope it is out before 2.30pm otherwise the afternoon thread will be about the Scottish Independence referendum.
Incidentally, will we have occasional articles about the Catalan referendum? Doesn't that precede the Scottish one?
I hope we have some guest articles on it, hopefully Mr Observer will contribute a few, he is very knowledgeable about the region.
Edit: Although I understand why anything Spanish may upset him at the moment.
The government declined the Labour amendment and put their own one to a vote because they thought they could force it through on their own, but once it turned out they'd miscalculated the obvious way to find out the opinion of parliament would have been to put the Labour motion to a vote and see if parliament preferred that to nothing.
Rory clearly has strong feelings on the sanctity of marriage:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180711/Charity-worker-broke-husbands-heart-leaving-Tory-MP-met-volunteering-Afghanistan.html
I think his odds of being the next, or a future, anything have rather lengthened.
The Catalan Government received these recommendations yesterday from the Advisory Council for the National Transition (CATN, Catalan acronym), a body that was established in February 2013 with the aim of analyzing which legal means can be used to call a guarantee-based referendum. The CATN is mainly made up of university professors.
The two main parties of the Catalan Parliament (centre-right Convergence and Union, CiU, and centre-left Republican Left, ERC) agreed in December 2012 to hold a referendum in 2014. Ecosocialist Initiative for Catalonia (ICV) and democratic socialist Popular Unity Candidates (CUP) also back the holding of a referendum. Those four parties hold 87 out of 135 seats in the Catalan Parliament. On the other hand, centre-left Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSC) says the referendum should only be held if the Spanish authorities agree to. Spanish nationalist Popular Party (PP) and Citizens (C's) reject the referendum.
26/07/2013
http://www.nationalia.info/en/news/1532
Anyway, you've got the chronology the wrong way round. It was open to Labour to vote in favour of the government motion (or abstain, of course), once their own amendment had failed, if they preferred it to nothing. They chose not to, so presumably they preferred nothing.