@SouthamObserver That's simply wrong. The Government has to implement policy. It shouldn't be micromanaged by the Opposition. If the Opposition want to take policy in a sharply different direction, they should put down amendments accordingly, but they should not seek to tweak.
I hope the voters of Broxstowe tell you that as well..
To be fair to Nick, he has made his position clear. He isn't complaining about winning, or blaming conservatives for his victory. Unlike some labour posters.
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.
Absolutely right Roger. Ed could have proclaimed that I have saved the country from another illegal war that that war monger Cameron wanted. We have a new ethical foreign policy (the oldies are the best) and no longer in believe in bombing countries because we can.
It is his obvious horror at what has happened that makes him look bad and will inevitably have weakened his support with those that were allegedly threatening to resign if he supported intervention.
the two motions were actually substantively different
At last, a PB Kinnock starts to understand.
So when all those Tories - including multiple spinners on here - stated that there was no discernible difference between the government motion and the Labour amendment, they were wrong. I completely agree and have been saying so since before the votes took place. Thus, we have a situation in which the two sides just saw things differently. There was no attempt to engineer political advantage and those that claim otherwise are seeking to divert attention from the fact government MPs failed to support the government motion to the extent necessary to see it approved. Bingo - at least some Tories on here get it.
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.
Absolutely right Roger. Ed could have proclaimed that I have saved the country from another illegal war that that war monger Cameron wanted. We have a new ethical foreign policy (the oldies are the best) and no longer in believe in bombing countries because we can.
It is his obvious horror at what has happened that makes him look bad and will inevitably have weakened his support with those that were allegedly threatening to resign if he supported intervention.
Self inflicted doesn't begin to cover this.
It would have been crass and utterly dishonest to characterise Cameron as a warmonger. Ed was absolutely right not to have done so. He is also absolutely right not to be jumping for joy at what has happened. This is not a game.
Todays PMQ's performace by the Leader of the Opposition was appallng by anyones standards. lf this man wishes to be the next PM then he has to seriously get to grips with his brief and his responsibilities. Right now he appears not to have a clue about either.
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.
Absolutely right Roger. Ed could have proclaimed that I have saved the country from another illegal war that that war monger Cameron wanted. We have a new ethical foreign policy (the oldies are the best) and no longer in believe in bombing countries because we can.
It is his obvious horror at what has happened that makes him look bad and will inevitably have weakened his support with those that were allegedly threatening to resign if he supported intervention.
Self inflicted doesn't begin to cover this.
It would have been crass and utterly dishonest to characterise Cameron as a warmonger. Ed was absolutely right not to have done so. He is also absolutely right not to be jumping for joy at what has happened. This is not a game.
Reall ?. Seems to me the PPE boys have handled this like a JCR jape. The only thing missing was them flicking bread rolls at each other.
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.
Absolutely right Roger. Ed could have proclaimed that I have saved the country from another illegal war that that war monger Cameron wanted. We have a new ethical foreign policy (the oldies are the best) and no longer in believe in bombing countries because we can.
It is his obvious horror at what has happened that makes him look bad and will inevitably have weakened his support with those that were allegedly threatening to resign if he supported intervention.
Self inflicted doesn't begin to cover this.
It would have been crass and utterly dishonest to characterise Cameron as a warmonger. Ed was absolutely right not to have done so. He is also absolutely right not to be jumping for joy at what has happened. This is not a game.
Reall ?. Seems to me the PPE boys have handled this like a JCR jape. The only thing missing was them flicking bread rolls at each other.
Sadly, it is beginning to look like that is what is happening. JCRisation.
It's certainly noticeable that Tories here are trying to make partisan hay with it, but jus as I didn't think Labour's bounce after the vote would last don't think the reverse will either. The public have moved on unless one party insists on making it central again, which IMO would be unwise for whoever did it.
This year's party conferences look set to be more important than usual - with both Cameron and Miliband in the polling doldrums, there's a significant potential reward to whoever proves to exceed expectations. Not sure that anyone is paying enough attention to Clegg for it to matter so much to him.
Partisan hay from the Tories? Did you see the posts on here on Thursday night demanding that Cameron resign?
Over-reaction is a staple of PB, but that was a classic.
I don't like to have to tell you this but PB Kinnocks isn't working for you. Although its an improvement on all those mental illness references you had to stop using.
Oh, I dunno, it's a useful antidote to PB Tories.....what's this, can dish it out, but can't take it?
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.
The press are against Miliband and even if he achieves anything,publicity will only given to what he`s not done or got wrong or how he`s supposedly behaved slyly.
Cameron can be as rubbish as he can be and he is rubbish but the press will show him in a good light.
But it is Miliband`s fault really.He could have avoided it had he not openly waged war against Murdoch and then insist on press regulation instead of appeasing them as Cameron did.Miliband should have waited till he was in Downing Street and then come down on the two like a ton of bricks.
Despite all this,Labour are in the lead and have a good chance of winning the next election!
It would have been crass and utterly dishonest to characterise Cameron as a warmonger. Ed was absolutely right not to have done so. He is also absolutely right not to be jumping for joy at what has happened. This is not a game.
Good try SO.
But Cameron made a sincere and measured argument for military intervention in principle. No dodgy dossiers, no lies, no seeking to sex things up, just a clear and coherent explanation as to why in principle he thought this was a good idea even although no guarantees could be given. I respectfully disagree (as do about 70% of the UK population) but there we are.
Labour's amendment tried to fix a "road map". It was a map with very few signposts and allowed him to determine at any point that they were lost and should not go forward. This was defeated.
He then had the choice of opposing or supporting or even abstaining from the "in principle" motion before the House. He chose to oppose, even although he did want to intervene in principle. And he had earlier promised not to. And the motion was entirely consistent with taking up any point on his roadmap at the time the decision came to be made.
That was his choice. He is deemed to have adult capacity. The idea that it is anyone else's responsibility than his is just absurd. As absurd as suggesting anyone should help him out of that predicament now.
It would have been crass and utterly dishonest to characterise Cameron as a warmonger. Ed was absolutely right not to have done so. He is also absolutely right not to be jumping for joy at what has happened. This is not a game.
Good try SO.
But Cameron made a sincere and measured argument for military intervention in principle. No dodgy dossiers, no lies, no seeking to sex things up, just a clear and coherent explanation as to why in principle he thought this was a good idea even although no guarantees could be given. I respectfully disagree (as do about 70% of the UK population) but there we are.
Labour's amendment tried to fix a "road map". It was a map with very few signposts and allowed him to determine at any point that they were lost and should not go forward. This was defeated.
He then had the choice of opposing or supporting or even abstaining from the "in principle" motion before the House. He chose to oppose, even although he did want to intervene in principle. And he had earlier promised not to. And the motion was entirely consistent with taking up any point on his roadmap at the time the decision came to be made.
That was his choice. He is deemed to have adult capacity. The idea that it is anyone else's responsibility than his is just absurd. As absurd as suggesting anyone should help him out of that predicament now.
Who on earth is claiming that Labour's vote against the government motion is anything other than Labour's responsibility? Everyone knew before the debate took place that Labour was going to vote against and that is what Labour did. Knowing Labour was going to vote against, the government still chose to present its motion and to argue its case. The government lost. That is the government's responsibility.
What I am puzzled about, though, is why you believe that it would then have been appropriate for EdM to describe David Cameron as a warmonger and to walk around with a huge smile on his face. I think it would have been utterly crass to do so.
"Countries where everyone has access to cleaning drinking water, such as the UK and France, have nine per cent higher Alzheimer's rates then average. In comparison those where less than half have access, such as Kenya and Cambodia, have a significantly lower incident rate."
What was the point in him making a principled argument if he couldn't be bothered getting his own ministers to vote and he was going to drop his principled position as soon as his cock up slapped him in the face?
For at least the 10th time Tim because it was their responsibility and their judgment. Each MP had to make that choice. That is why we elect them. All of them. Even Ed.
"Countries where everyone has access to cleaning drinking water, such as the UK and France, have nine per cent higher Alzheimer's rates then average. In comparison those where less than half have access, such as Kenya and Cambodia, have a significantly lower incident rate."
"Countries where everyone has access to cleaning drinking water, such as the UK and France, have nine per cent higher Alzheimer's rates then average. In comparison those where less than half have access, such as Kenya and Cambodia, have a significantly lower incident rate."
"Countries where everyone has access to cleaning drinking water, such as the UK and France, have nine per cent higher Alzheimer's rates then average. In comparison those where less than half have access, such as Kenya and Cambodia, have a significantly lower incident rate."
What I am puzzled about, though, is why you believe that it would then have been appropriate for EdM to describe David Cameron as a warmonger and to walk around with a huge smile on his face. I think it would have been utterly crass to do so.
Err, that's pretty much what Labour MPs did, whooping and cheering because they'd thought they'd stuffed Cameron, Ed gave an interview accusing Cameron of being 'cavalier and reckless' and 'engaged in a rush to war', and it's reported that Labour MPs gave Ed a big round of applause in a meeting after the vote.
What I am puzzled about, though, is why you believe that it would then have been appropriate for EdM to describe David Cameron as a warmonger and to walk around with a huge smile on his face. I think it would have been utterly crass to do so.
Err, that's pretty much what Labour MPs did, whooping and cheering because they'd thought they'd stuffed Cameron, Ed gave an interview accusing Cameron of being 'cavalier and reckless' and 'engaged in a rush to war', and it's reported that Labour MPs gave Ed a big round of applause in a meeting after the vote.
He was cavalier, we're now told that Hague said the recall was rushed and unnecessary but Cameron listened to the ultimate political game player Osborne instead
tim much as I'm enjoying sharing your pain, it might be high time to give it a rest. It's a score draw 1-1 ( Cameron OG, Miliband OG )
Cameron respected the will of Parliament, and Ed got caught out playing games.
All else is chaff.
If Cameron went against the will of Parliament,he would be sent packing to the Polzeath beach and stay there forever.So posts about Cameron respecting Parliament are just pure rubbish!
What I am puzzled about, though, is why you believe that it would then have been appropriate for EdM to describe David Cameron as a warmonger and to walk around with a huge smile on his face. I think it would have been utterly crass to do so.
Err, that's pretty much what Labour MPs did, whooping and cheering because they'd thought they'd stuffed Cameron, Ed gave an interview accusing Cameron of being 'cavalier and reckless' and 'engaged in a rush to war', and it's reported that Labour MPs gave Ed a big round of applause in a meeting after the vote.
Those Labour MPs that did that should be ashamed. Just as those Tories who have said EdM will be responsible for the deaths of people in Syria should be ashamed. Being engaged in a rush to war (it would be good to see the wider uote) is not the same as being a warmonger.
"The press are against Miliband and even if he achieves anything,publicity will only given to what he`s not done or got wrong or how he`s supposedly behaved slyly.
Cameron can be as rubbish as he can be and he is rubbish but the press will show him in a good light.
Miliband..could have avoided it had he not openly waged war against Murdoch and then insist on press regulation instead of appeasing them as Cameron did.Miliband should have waited till he was in Downing Street and then come down on the two like a ton of bricks."
If Cameron had got his own side to turn up he wouldn't have needed to would he.
It's Dave's fault Ed is untrustworthy?
Wow.
A new low. Is Smart tim ever coming back?
Surge.
Cameron didn't even know the numbers on his own side. And when he found out he packed it all in.
Never mind, he can arrange another photo op for Sam Cam and pretend he tried hard to get his vote out
tim you're getting yourself into a bit of a tizzy about all this.
I am the 253rd person to remind you that the vote was lost because (this is the bit you need to pay attention to): The Labour Party Voted Against It.
NPXMP gets this and is happy with it. You also get it but because you are not happy with it (and who can blame you) your post-bot has blown a fuse and you are losing coherence as a result.
Pull it back together tim.
I'll start you off: Osborne...inflated house prices....Help to Buy...cost of living (much mileage in that one)...etc.
the two motions were actually substantively different
At last, a PB Kinnock starts to understand.
So when all those Tories - including multiple spinners on here - stated that there was no discernible difference between the government motion and the Labour amendment, they were wrong. I completely agree and have been saying so since before the votes took place. Thus, we have a situation in which the two sides just saw things differently. There was no attempt to engineer political advantage and those that claim otherwise are seeking to divert attention from the fact government MPs failed to support the government motion to the extent necessary to see it approved. Bingo - at least some Tories on here get it.
Do you actually believe what you are writing?
Milliband asked for lots of amendments to the government bill which were all given, yet still voted against it. Cameron had unwisely trusted Miliband which was why he was not bothered about getting a full turn out of his MPs or some voting against him as he had assumed that most of Labour would vote with him. Miliband decided to vote no simply for political gain. This is not spinning, its just the way it is. You can tell by Milibands bizarre questioning at PMQs today that Labour had assumed the bill would have passed as they are now basing their Syria policy around Iran. what influence do we have in Iran? Did miliband mention this policy last week? Miliband wanted a narrow yes vote so he could say he was the anti-war party as he saw the polls on military intervention. By voting no and ensuring the Govt was defeated he broke 200 years of tradition and made other world leaders wonder what the hell he was doing. He is now still trying to justify his decision. Is Cameron trying to justify his?
@politicshome: Ken Clarke, talking about last Thursday's vote on Syria intervention: "We did not have time to get a good majority.”
Thanks Ken, Cameron's now cavalier and a poodle. No wonder Hague was pissed off
Oh really that's just so funny.
The man who supports Tony "Yo" Blair calls someone else a poodle.
PB just funnier than anything on TV.
Dave was so eager to please he lost the vote. Double fail.
Interesting questions for Hague now.
Yeah sure tim but really, poodle ?
I mean does that make Tony a lap dog given how he couldn't stop dryhumping Dubya's leg ? And what about poor Obama being chased through kitchens by a slightly deranged St Bernard called Gordon ?
Looking down thread some of you lefties seem to have signs of Alzheimers big time, you can't remember anything your party did. Either that or you think the rules the rest of live with don't apply to you.
"William Hague’s appearance at the 1922 Committee has underlined the fact that the Tory party is now split on foreign policy. I’m told that the questions that the Foreign Secretary received were pretty much evenly split between the passionate supporters of intervention in Syria and its passionate opponents. Those present calculate that the room was evenly split between the two factions.
Hague, I understand, made a robust case for why Britain needs to remain an outward looking nation that is prepared to use its military forces. But he did say, when asked, that ‘lessons will be learned’ from how the Syria vote was handled. This answer will fuel Westminster speculation that Hague was unhappy with the decision to recall Parliament."
the two motions were actually substantively different
At last, a PB Kinnock starts to understand.
So when all those Tories - including multiple spinners on here - stated that there was no discernible difference between the government motion and the Labour amendment, they were wrong. I completely agree and have been saying so since before the votes took place. Thus, we have a situation in which the two sides just saw things differently. There was no attempt to engineer political advantage and those that claim otherwise are seeking to divert attention from the fact government MPs failed to support the government motion to the extent necessary to see it approved. Bingo - at least some Tories on here get it.
Do you actually believe what you are writing?
Milliband asked for lots of amendments to the government bill which were all given, yet still voted against it. Cameron had unwisely trusted Miliband which was why he was not bothered about getting a full turn out of his MPs or some voting against him as he had assumed that most of Labour would vote with him. Miliband decided to vote no simply for political gain. This is not spinning, its just the way it is. You can tell by Milibands bizarre questioning at PMQs today that Labour had assumed the bill would have passed as they are now basing their Syria policy around Iran. what influence do we have in Iran? Did miliband mention this policy last week? Miliband wanted a narrow yes vote so he could say he was the anti-war party as he saw the polls on military intervention. By voting no and ensuring the Govt was defeated he broke 200 years of tradition and made other world leaders wonder what the hell he was doing. He is now still trying to justify his decision. Is Cameron trying to justify his?
No, Cameron is seeking to blame others for his failure to get a majority to support the government motion. But I have no doubt that he, like EdM, genuinely believed in what he was saying during the debate.
"Milliband asked for lots of amendments to the government bill which were all given, yet still voted against it."
This is simplistic bollocks, but its become the press orthodoxy. Cameron presented amendments in response to Miliband's conditions, not amendments that Miliband directly framed. Miliband's publicly stated conditions couldn't have been covered by the final tory amendment, because they were too expansive. Cameron knew this full well. Miliband's publicly stated lines throughout Wednesday and Thursday are all on the internet for you to see.
Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job
Garbage. What it tells you is that he respects parliament, and sticks to his word. He promised as long ago as 2006 that he would seek the consent of parliament in this kind of situation. In this case, he soberly outlined his case in a well-respected speech, but parliament didn't give that consent, and he respects that. Isabel Hardman nails it completely:
Labour does risk looking like a baby who can’t decide whether he wants milk, crying at one point and refusing at another, by having opposed last week’s motion and now dropping big hints that it wants another vote. The case that Murphy, Bradshaw and other colleagues make on Parliament being rushed into making a decision on intervention would have more currency if Parliament had actually voted on intervention last week. It didn’t: the motion from the government – rewritten as a result of Labour demands - said there was a ‘sound legal basis for taking action’, and that ‘before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place’.
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards
"Milliband asked for lots of amendments to the government bill which were all given, yet still voted against it."
This is simplistic bollocks, but its become the press orthodoxy. Cameron presented amendments in response to Miliband's conditions, not amendments that Miliband directly framed. Miliband's publicly stated conditions couldn't have been covered by the final tory amendment, because they were too expansive. Cameron knew this full well. Miliband's publicly stated lines throughout Wednesday and Thursday are all on the internet for you to see.
@politicshome: Ken Clarke, talking about last Thursday's vote on Syria intervention: "We did not have time to get a good majority.”
Thanks Ken, Cameron's now cavalier and a poodle. No wonder Hague was pissed off
Oh really that's just so funny.
The man who supports Tony "Yo" Blair calls someone else a poodle.
PB just funnier than anything on TV.
Dave was so eager to please he lost the vote. Double fail.
Interesting questions for Hague now.
Yeah sure tim but really, poodle ?
I mean does that make Tony a lap dog given how he couldn't stop dryhumping Dubya's leg ? And what about poor Obama being chased through kitchens by a slightly deranged St Bernard called Gordon ?
Looking down thread some of you lefties seem to have signs of Alzheimers big time, you can't remember anything your party did. Either that or you think the rules the rest of live with don't apply to you.
Blair believed in removing Saddam, and didn't need persuading, as he believed in Kosovo and Sierra Leone and removing the Taliban. Cameron believed in Libya and deserves credit for that, and Labour supported him.
Cameron claims to believe in firing missiles at Syria but was so incompetent he couldn't get his own side to support it. It looks as though he couldn't be arsed to get them to turn up and ignored Hagues warnings.
He is an amateur, as he lost the boundary changes through incompetence and poor party management so he lost this.
He consulted Parliament after bombing Libya, not before. Don't claim what he said in 2006 has been consistently adhered to, otherwise that sick use of his family to promise no NHS reorganisation may pop up again, let alone promising to stick to Browns spending plans and erecting tiny windmills to prove whatever it was he was trying to prove.
@politicshome: Ken Clarke, talking about last Thursday's vote on Syria intervention: "We did not have time to get a good majority.”
Thanks Ken, Cameron's now cavalier and a poodle. No wonder Hague was pissed off
Oh really that's just so funny.
The man who supports Tony "Yo" Blair calls someone else a poodle.
PB just funnier than anything on TV.
Dave was so eager to please he lost the vote. Double fail.
Interesting questions for Hague now.
Yeah sure tim but really, poodle ?
I mean does that make Tony a lap dog given how he couldn't stop dryhumping Dubya's leg ? And what about poor Obama being chased through kitchens by a slightly deranged St Bernard called Gordon ?
Looking down thread some of you lefties seem to have signs of Alzheimers big time, you can't remember anything your party did. Either that or you think the rules the rest of live with don't apply to you.
Blair believed in removing Saddam, and didn't need persuading, as he believed in Kosovo and Sierra Leone and removing the Taliban. Cameron believed in Libya and deserves credit for that, and Labour supported him.
Cameron claims to believe in firing missiles at Syria but was so incompetent he couldn't get his own side to support it. It looks as though he couldn't be arsed to get them to turn up and ignored Hagues warnings.
He is an amateur, as he lost the boundary changes through incompetence and poor party management so he lost this.
Blair quite simply lied to the British parliament and public to keep on side with Bush. There is nothing ethical or moral in what he did, he has poisoned the well as we've seen this week and however the armchair warriors want to play it, the fact is because of Blair the UK public doesn't trust it's politicians. The idiot Miliband having played to the gallery is only now realising that the well has been poisoned for him too, and he's made it worse by offending old time allies and cutting out the range of diplomatic tools available. He's a tit.
For all its tricks and manipulation, we did have a free ranging debate and vote over an issue that divides all parties and indeed the country. The vote to not intervene is the right one however the mechanics of parliament worked out. It reflects the lack of enthusiasm for mid east wars with unclear objectives that the country at large demonstrates in the polls.
If Assads forces use gas again it is not Ed Milibands fault, It is not Dave Camerons fault, it is the fault of the regime itself. I was discussing the issue with a Syrian colleague of mine today. There seems little doubt that the attack was by Assads forces, who have destroyed half the country. There are a few non lethal ways that we can help; and I agree with my Syrian colleague that bombing the other half of Syria is not one of them.
Most importantly we need to supply atropine and protective gear to the FSA. Atropine is the essential antidote to Sarin and is widely used in anaesthesia and cardiac arrests so doctors and paramedics are experienced in its use.
The other way that we can help (and may well be doing so already) is to provide intelligence, communications and command help to the FSA factions that we support. These are not things that are useful to the AQ factions and will not provide blowback. We can help with the refugees requirements. It is important that these refugee camps are not dominated by AQ and other islamist elements. We need to be there first with food and assistance.
We also need to put pressure on Iran, China and Russia to stop supporting Assads regime. This can be diplomatic, economic and social. Sporting boycotts are an easy place to start, and Russians and Chinese are big watchers of our football and Russia does not want Sochi to degenerate to a farce. Putting pressure on the allies of Assad from all sides is essential, and publicising the attack in all these countries would put pressure on even autocratic regimes.
Assad has written his own obituary with this attack, but the coup de grace needs to come from his own people.
'Sarah Montague didn’t pick Rachel Reeves up on the massive fib she told on the Today programme this morning. Reeves claimed that “most of the money that the Labour Party receives comes from small donations and members”.
Whining pathetic Tories seeking to post facto explain their criticism of Blair for not going fast enough to remove Saddam always try to seek solace in that.
Meantime Cameron cared so much last week now he hasn't got the balls to trust his own side in a vote in case he loses his job.
Oh dear tim, you're getting a bit hot under the collar. However we didn't remove Saddam, the Yanks did and if you're trying to portray Iraq as some kind of success you're off your tree. Tony went along for the ride and quite clearly hadn't thought much about what he was doing.
'Sarah Montague didn’t pick Rachel Reeves up on the massive fib she told on the Today programme this morning. Reeves claimed that “most of the money that the Labour Party receives comes from small donations and members”.
Talking of which, as I understand it Labour had revenues of about £16m last year.
How, then, can anyone argue that the £1m loss from the GMB represents 3% of their budget? Unless they are chronically overspending?
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards
Bloody hell,I agree with one of rogers post ;-)
Except that Miliband *was* in favour of military force being used in principle, though heavily caveated. Which is why he an Labour have been in a tizzy, unable to work out what their policy should be. What he'd aimed it to be was 'not what the government did', so he could claim that if only he'd been listened to, things would have been better.
The irony of course is that he wasn't listened to. Labour's motion went down by much more than the government one and the government one was defeated not because of Labour's policy but because of a combination of Labour's positioning and government policy.
Ultimately, Miliband wanted to be seen as not being against force being used but not being in favour of it either - and that really isn't good enough for someone who aspires to be PM and who might have to lead these debates one day.
Comments
To be fair to Nick, he has made his position clear. He isn't complaining about winning, or blaming conservatives for his victory. Unlike some labour posters.
It is his obvious horror at what has happened that makes him look bad and will inevitably have weakened his support with those that were allegedly threatening to resign if he supported intervention.
Self inflicted doesn't begin to cover this.
There must be something that Ed would not find embarrassing to talk about. Help.
lf this man wishes to be the next PM then he has to seriously get to grips with his brief and his responsibilities.
Right now he appears not to have a clue about either.
"Synchronised spinning"
I like it! Tonight it's a toss up between Tim and Scott. I'd just give it to Scott for his almost poetic use of repetition
Quite. I've always admitted that the tories were defeated by their own side. They probably would not be a second time around.
I still don;t see why some labour politicians are calling for a re-run of a vote in which they won.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/426815/Actually-Mr-Gove-you-re-the-disgrace
Over-reaction is a staple of PB, but that was a classic.
They voted for something they didn't want, and now they are crying.
"Best 2 out of 3 ..." will be the next line.
Cameron can be as rubbish as he can be and he is rubbish but the press will show him in a good light.
But it is Miliband`s fault really.He could have avoided it had he not openly waged war against Murdoch and then insist on press regulation instead of appeasing them as Cameron did.Miliband should have waited till he was in Downing Street and then come down on the two like a ton of bricks.
Despite all this,Labour are in the lead and have a good chance of winning the next election!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23958357
'I don't like to have to tell you this but PB Kinnocks isn't working for you.'
Translation.
You've pissed off wee Timmy.
But Cameron made a sincere and measured argument for military intervention in principle. No dodgy dossiers, no lies, no seeking to sex things up, just a clear and coherent explanation as to why in principle he thought this was a good idea even although no guarantees could be given. I respectfully disagree (as do about 70% of the UK population) but there we are.
Labour's amendment tried to fix a "road map". It was a map with very few signposts and allowed him to determine at any point that they were lost and should not go forward. This was defeated.
He then had the choice of opposing or supporting or even abstaining from the "in principle" motion before the House. He chose to oppose, even although he did want to intervene in principle. And he had earlier promised not to. And the motion was entirely consistent with taking up any point on his roadmap at the time the decision came to be made.
That was his choice. He is deemed to have adult capacity. The idea that it is anyone else's responsibility than his is just absurd. As absurd as suggesting anyone should help him out of that predicament now.
What I am puzzled about, though, is why you believe that it would then have been appropriate for EdM to describe David Cameron as a warmonger and to walk around with a huge smile on his face. I think it would have been utterly crass to do so.
In comparison those where less than half have access, such as Kenya and Cambodia, have a significantly lower incident rate."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10286654/Good-hygiene-may-be-to-blame-for-soaring-Alzheimers.html
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/02/ship-crashed-after-captain-forgot-about-english-coast-3945746/
"Ed Miliband meets a policy"
"HMS Cameron sunk by vote"
"Good ship Clegg runs aground. Nobody notices."
All else is chaff.
In Germany:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
" where is David Miliband when you want him"
In America thank god, otherwise we'd be firing off missiles today.
Cameron can be as rubbish as he can be and he is rubbish but the press will show him in a good light.
Miliband..could have avoided it had he not openly waged war against Murdoch and then insist on press regulation instead of appeasing them as Cameron did.Miliband should have waited till he was in Downing Street and then come down on the two like a ton of bricks."
Excellent summary.
The man who supports Tony "Yo" Blair calls someone else a poodle.
PB just funnier than anything on TV.
I am the 253rd person to remind you that the vote was lost because (this is the bit you need to pay attention to): The Labour Party Voted Against It.
NPXMP gets this and is happy with it. You also get it but because you are not happy with it (and who can blame you) your post-bot has blown a fuse and you are losing coherence as a result.
Pull it back together tim.
I'll start you off: Osborne...inflated house prices....Help to Buy...cost of living (much mileage in that one)...etc.
Pleasure don't mention it.
Milliband asked for lots of amendments to the government bill which were all given, yet still voted against it. Cameron had unwisely trusted Miliband which was why he was not bothered about getting a full turn out of his MPs or some voting against him as he had assumed that most of Labour would vote with him. Miliband decided to vote no simply for political gain. This is not spinning, its just the way it is. You can tell by Milibands bizarre questioning at PMQs today that Labour had assumed the bill would have passed as they are now basing their Syria policy around Iran. what influence do we have in Iran? Did miliband mention this policy last week? Miliband wanted a narrow yes vote so he could say he was the anti-war party as he saw the polls on military intervention. By voting no and ensuring the Govt was defeated he broke 200 years of tradition and made other world leaders wonder what the hell he was doing. He is now still trying to justify his decision. Is Cameron trying to justify his?
Of all the party leaders who voted last week, which one wants a re-run?
I'll give you a clue. It's the one who cocked it up. The one whose party are in revolt about it.
It's not Dave...
I mean does that make Tony a lap dog given how he couldn't stop dryhumping Dubya's leg ? And what about poor Obama being chased through kitchens by a slightly deranged St Bernard called Gordon ?
Looking down thread some of you lefties seem to have signs of Alzheimers big time, you can't remember anything your party did. Either that or you think the rules the rest of live with don't apply to you.
"Milliband asked for lots of amendments to the government bill which were all given, yet still voted against it."
This is simplistic bollocks, but its become the press orthodoxy. Cameron presented amendments in response to Miliband's conditions, not amendments that Miliband directly framed. Miliband's publicly stated conditions couldn't have been covered by the final tory amendment, because they were too expansive. Cameron knew this full well. Miliband's publicly stated lines throughout Wednesday and Thursday are all on the internet for you to see.
A senior Labour figure tells Jason Beattie Miliband and McCluskey are like “Thelma and Louise… They’ve got to the cliff edge and driven off.”
(Via Guido)
Dave doesn't
Which one cocked up?
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes in favour of draft resolution authorising the use of force in Syria http://itv.co/1a3Aoqf
Ed's day gets better and better...
"So a Pyrrhic victory for Miliband"
Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.
Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards
Bloody hell,I agree with one of rogers post ;-)
If Assads forces use gas again it is not Ed Milibands fault, It is not Dave Camerons fault, it is the fault of the regime itself. I was discussing the issue with a Syrian colleague of mine today. There seems little doubt that the attack was by Assads forces, who have destroyed half the country. There are a few non lethal ways that we can help; and I agree with my Syrian colleague that bombing the other half of Syria is not one of them.
Most importantly we need to supply atropine and protective gear to the FSA. Atropine is the essential antidote to Sarin and is widely used in anaesthesia and cardiac arrests so doctors and paramedics are experienced in its use.
The other way that we can help (and may well be doing so already) is to provide intelligence, communications and command help to the FSA factions that we support. These are not things that are useful to the AQ factions and will not provide blowback. We can help with the refugees requirements. It is important that these refugee camps are not dominated by AQ and other islamist elements. We need to be there first with food and assistance.
We also need to put pressure on Iran, China and Russia to stop supporting Assads regime. This can be diplomatic, economic and social. Sporting boycotts are an easy place to start, and Russians and Chinese are big watchers of our football and Russia does not want Sochi to degenerate to a farce. Putting pressure on the allies of Assad from all sides is essential, and publicising the attack in all these countries would put pressure on even autocratic regimes.
Assad has written his own obituary with this attack, but the coup de grace needs to come from his own people.
heir leaders
well it is a family business :-)
'Sarah Montague didn’t pick Rachel Reeves up on the massive fib she told on the Today programme this morning. Reeves claimed that “most of the money that the Labour Party receives comes from small donations and members”.
Dave doesn't
Which one cocked up?
Been seeing this at first hand recently.
"But thanks to Labour’s legacy of shameful inaction, only radical measures will do."
Shameful inaction? bit like their energy policy then
Khan, I'm laughing at the 'Superior' Intellect."
Is it me or has today been Tim's most spittle-flecked, shouty, emotional performance on PB for some time?
Calm down dear
Next you'll be claiming that Labour's toxic Iraq legacy had nothing to do with last week's vote.
How, then, can anyone argue that the £1m loss from the GMB represents 3% of their budget? Unless they are chronically overspending?
Because he's afraid he would lose? In other words, Cameron is playing politics over Syria?
Won the battle; lost the war.
The irony of course is that he wasn't listened to. Labour's motion went down by much more than the government one and the government one was defeated not because of Labour's policy but because of a combination of Labour's positioning and government policy.
Ultimately, Miliband wanted to be seen as not being against force being used but not being in favour of it either - and that really isn't good enough for someone who aspires to be PM and who might have to lead these debates one day.
Part three is must-read for those with an interest in the Law of Unintended Consequences.