Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s decision to back the Syria raid without Commons approva
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s decision to back the Syria raid without Commons approval was in the face of public opinion
Was TMay right to order strikes on Syria without MPs backing? SurvationYes 30%No 54%DK 16%
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I doubt this is enough to imminently alter anyone's vote: the noisy people are the ones (I might say opportunists) who passionately dislike May and the Conservatives anyway.
What May needs to do in the Commons is show that Corbyn's alternative was unworkable due to Russian intransigence at the UNSC, that the coalition of countries built up shows we are not alone, and that we are protecting the country, whilst Corbyn wants to surrender it.
Today may be bad for May, but there might also be dangers for Corbyn whose position on the wider issues are far from consistent or realistic.
*) Some MPs who might have reluctantly voted for action, might not know its taken place to save them from the heat and fury of idiots.
*) It might be lost.
*) A lost vote might prevent future actions in Syria and elsewhere.
*) It may not play well in the media - a pointless vote.
On the other hand, it could be seen as giving parliament a say, and MPs who were worried (stupidly IMO) about the start of World War Three will have realised it did not occur.
If the government were to call a vote, would it be possible to structure the wording to cause maximise discomfort to Corbyn.
(I might also arrange a stunt, like getting a victim of the attack to address parliament. Too many people are treating them as ciphers and not as people.)
Personally I was in favour of the strike against IS but this not this one.
And all the time he needs Viagra to help him...
Typo - Last but two paragraph extra "it what".
The focus has shifted significantly to Jezza calling for a War Powers Act. Both May and Corbyn will face a difficult time today ; Corbyn because of his pacifism and appeasement and May for sidelining Parliament in defiance of the will of the voters and many of her own MP's.
OGH's thread leaders are tablets of stone handed down from the heights of Bedford. To read them once is a joy. To read them twice is a early morning guilty sin verging on corrupting vice that may only be compared with readership of ConHome !!
I suspect that a majority of MPs will fall behind her, given operations were discrete and resulted in no loss of British troops. The Ghost Of Ed Miliband will stalk proceedings though.
I've just asked Mrs JackW if we possess any bongos .... I think she now considers my medication requires upping substantially .... and that's before I told her why ....
I agree with your second paragraph.
At the end of the day May is PM, and she is a leader. Contrary to what you said below, she led on this: going to parliament, whilst good in some circumstances, is not necessarily leadership, but abrogating leadership.
The wording should refer to a vote. Not having a vote means we don't know whether MPs collectively 'back' an action or not.
F1: my post-race ramble is here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/china-post-race-analysis-2018.html
As I said yesterday, I've put tiny sums on Magnussen/Grosjean to win, each way, in Azerbaijan (501/651 on Ladbrokes with boost). Given how close Force India got last year, it's worth a shot.
Leadership is a many headed matter. One of which is, where appropriate, to front up and explain to the troops the moral imperative of the mission. Mrs May failed.
I didn't expect of the Prime Minister anything of the Henry V at Agincourt or Churchill "We will fight them on the beaches". However a no show was completely unacceptable in these circumstances.
That’s not to say there should always be a full parliamentary debate and vote before any action by a UK PM is taken, that not always practicable, but the threshold of the benefit-of-the-doubt for her is higher.
AIUI our involvement in this amounted to firing 8 storm cruise missiles from international airspace at 1 target. Were we really going to recall Parliament for that? If there is any risk of further involvement (which looks unlikely at the moment despite Macron's boasting) it is right that Parliament discuss it.
May would probably have benefitted from recalling Parliament, making her case and exposing Corbyn to yet more ridicule from his own back benches. But like the strikes themselves her response seems to me to have been more proportionate.
The government's been doing that, and both the PM and FS have made statements.
What you are talking about is leaving the decision to others. That is not necessarily a sign of leadership, but it can be one of indecisiveness.
Not so.
Did Mrs Thatcher leave the decisions to others when she regularly briefed Parliament through the Privy Council and Parliament even in the darkest moments of the Falkland War? Did she dodge debates? NO NO and NO again.
The Prime Minister in Parliament is not "indecisiveness". It is a sign of strength and fortitude. It is a sign of the robustness of our democracy.
Sounds not my cup of tea, but it does sound as if there has been a degree of reconciliation.
It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.
It was clearly within the grasp of the PM to recall Parliament early last week without prejudice to action within the royal prerogative if required.
The Commons regularly held debates during WW2, indeed if Chamberlain had avoided the Norway debate, by showing "leadership" how different would history have been?
The only thing that matters was if the decision was correct. Maybe, but I'd say probably not, but the manner in which the decision was taken was sound. If it was correct to do, no benefit to having six hours of people talking past each other in the Commons.
Those insisting on the recall of Parliament are mainly those against any strikes at all, or see it as imperative that Parliament gets a wider say in another major political issue, one which hasn’t been mentioned so far on this thread so I’m not going to do so either.
I also think it is important that the elected government of the day can act within reasonable parameters without constantly running to Parliament. To find ourselves with a new constitutional principle that they cannot would be very unhelpful going forward. If Parliament does not like the action they have the option of sacking the government after the event.
If they’d intercepted and shot down 70 missiles on Friday night, they’d have plenty of videos for their propaganda channels - yet we haven’t seen any so far. Nor, it has to be said, have we seen the usual dubious videos of children caught up in the crossfire.
The most obvious explanation is therefore that Trump was right, Mission Accomplished.
The only thing that matters was if the decision was correct. Maybe, but I'd say probably not, but the manner in which the decision was taken was sound. If it was correct to do, no benefit to having six hours of people talking past each other in the Commons.
Lets be clear though. Parliament was not sidelined. That suggests they were supposed to be involved and were bypassed. That is simply not the case. With respect to jack w the issue of whether they should have been politically, not should they be legally. It may well have been better to do so, but that it is only a political should means the language of condemnation needs to be proportionate. I think it unfair to so heavily criticise someone for following a,lawful procedure, even if they could have done otherwise.
The war powers act proposal I am surprised was not in the last labour manifesto. It is interesting and I can see some on all sides backing it. But after much reflection I am still wary. The executive as the authority for a reason, and careful definition as when they could still act eould be essential.
Remember that the Israelis quite routinely defeat Syrian air defences and destroy targets at will. I'm sure that the US is at least as competent as Israel.
In fairness I think the evidence of success by the US Patriot system is mixed at best. Intercepting powered missiles is incredibly difficult.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/
The strike has been widely welcomed by the International community and has placed the UK firmly on the global stage and even now the UK, France and US are in the process of agreeing a draft resolution to submit to the UNSC.
Yesterday was a car crash for Corbyn who publicly handed our defence and foreign policy to Russia due to his insistance on UN agreement before taking any action knowing Russia will vetoe against every resolution
Sometimes a PM has to lead and no PM should ever act because it might not receive the approval of public opinion. The decision TM made is the ultimate one and she took it in her belief it was justified and was in negotiation with our allies
Whether or not she may or may not have had time to call a vote the real issue is that if Parliament had vetoed this limited action, as they could have, what message would it send the World that we had refused to act with our allies over the use of chemical weapons when we had come under attack on the streets of Salisbury. We would have been greatly diminished, much to the Kremlin loving Corbyn's delight, and let down the people of Salisbury.
I actually believe in time TM will be strengthened by this and Corbyn will be the loser.
And on another subject everyone should listen to Stephen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, talking today of his Christian religion and his decision to give all the boys who racially killed his son full forgiveness.
Everyone on this forum should listen and take on board his wonderful words - so inspiring - a lesson to each and everyone of us
For a short, sharp instant limited military response using existing in-theatre assets under international conventions, where necessary, it cannot always be done.
Nevertheless May is picking at her own scab here.
It should also be noted that while it is usual to get a parliamentary vote to support deployment of ground troops PM's have often used the royal prerogative for air strikes as Blair did over Kosovo or Major did when launching air strikes in support of the Kurds
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539
Let's see what the Kompromat Russian material holds if the newspaper reports on Russian retaliation are accurate today.
Indeed.
Despite all the admiration for some barnstorming rhetoric, it butters very few parsnips. It's a stage for politicians to preen themselves and make political points. That's why the opposition (whoever they are) like it - it make's them look useful rather than irrelevant. "Let's have a heated debate so we can look involved." It will never change votes.
I can just see a Jezzarite saying ... "That Mrs may was excellent, I'll vote for her." Even in the unlikely event that she was.
http://www.theblogmire.com/why-theresa-may-must-be-impeached/
Agreed that it needs sorting ASAP.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/985588431106473990
Very 'independent'.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18729382/russia-tries-to-pass-off-video-games-as-real-combat-footage-again/
Jezza won't lose much either - his reaction is predictable. If you disapprove of Jihadi John being vapourised, and demand total proof of Russian involvement in Syria, you're already away with the fairies.
I couldn't prove for certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I suspect it will.
https://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
1. They actively decided not to use them,
2. They tried using them unsuccessfully, they missed their target,
3. They had no opportunity to use them, couldn’t find / lock a target,
4. They weren’t serviceable, due to equipment and training,
5. They don’t actually have the advertised capability.
I think 4 and 5 are the two most likely scenarios.
The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.
I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.
Bleak times.
Above Guardian article written by Seamus no doubt. One aspect of the Syria intervention is that it has flushed out Corbyn and co's real views on defence for all to see.
e.g. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/985780924796276736
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43743579
The Syrians lit off every AD system they had (SA-3, SA-5, SA-6 and SA-17) which probably did more meaningful damage than the attack as the rounds would have gone unguided and ballistic landing fuck knows where.
Assuming all Russian built AD systems are dross operated by unshaven drunks is a great way to get yourself shot down. Ask Vega 31...
If she did so because she worried she might lose a vote that's contemptible.
Basically: radar stealth does not make a plane invisible to radar; it only makes it harder to detect to radar at certain frequencies. These frequencies are the ones most commonly used by radar systems as they have the best set of characteristics; e.g. propagation through the air, the size of the transmitter/receivers, or the resultant positional accuracy. By changing frequencies for early warning radars, particularly to longer wavelengths, they may be detectable enough to 'steer' ultra-high powered 'normal' radars onto them.
You can guarantee the major military powers are all looking into these technologies.
(Stealth is about more than radar though; it's also about reducing things like infrared visibility)