"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
No, Roger.
What is currently delaying the bombing of Syria is the resolve of Obama to use military intervention to enforce breaches by Syria of international norms on the use of chemical weapons,
We need to wait to see whether the current Russian initiative is designed to weaken US support for Obama within Congress or whether it is a genuine attempt to resolve the problem which triggered the crisis.
In the world of brinkmanship diplomacy, the stronger the position of the US and its aliies and the more resolute they are in support of their leaders' plans, the more likely there will be a peaceful resolution.
Russia would certainly not be proposing to assist Syria decommission its chemical weapons on the basis of Ed Milband's vacillation, indecision, duplicity and lack of clear intent.
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
Roger, do you know what the motion actually stated with regards to military action?
You should know better than jump aboard stopping the rush to war bollocks. It's not true you, I would hope, know it not to be true and frankly it makes you look utterly out of touch with reality.
"Labour admitted that it was likely that the only changes Mr Miliband is pushing for in the short term was to have a more direct financial relationship with union members.
Other reforms, such as curbing union influence over the party’s policies, will not be settled until after the 2015 general election, if at all."
"Labour later confirmed that the changes will only affect individual members, and will not address other issues such as the control of union leaders to cast votes on the behalf of their members at the party’s annual conference."
Which raises an interesting point about the leadership election if EdM's reforms effectively do away with union 'affiliated members'. That section still has one-third of the leadership electoral college. If current union affiliated members have to either become full members or aren't counted, what does that mean for the electoral college? There would still be affiliated organisations, like the Fabian Society or whoever, but their numbers would be massively smaller than currently exist in that section, greatly changing the dynamics of the electoral college.
Of course, the sensible option would be to move to true OMOV at the same time (as that's not possible without Ed's reforms, otherwise the unions would become absurdly powerful).
@SkyAnushka: PM & IDS on Universal Credit. We should not be "religious on timing" says PM, days after IDS staked his political rep on delivering on time
Rather the opposite of 'dead in the water', isn't it? He's giving IDS more leeway than IDS has asked for.
Really this micro-deconstruction of everything ministers say is ridiculous.
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
Cobblers 1. You'd have voted Labour anyway.
Cobblers 2. Miliband put forward a motion that supported military action himself. The only difference was that it had the rider 'but only when we say so too'.
Cobblers 3. There's no evidence that Obama, never mind Hollande or Cameron, was planning a major campaign. The attacks wouldn't have killed people on a massive scale, and it's unlikely that in the big picture they'd have made much difference to the number killed in the Syrian Civil War.
Cameron couldn't even get his own MPs back from weddings or his own ministers out of cupboards.
The key difference in all of this is that Obama had the sense to realise he was going to lose the vote which the incompetent Cameron didnt have the first idea about
tim
Obama did not delay the Senate vote because he was going to lose it,
He delayed it in response to the proposal by Russia
There will be strong and justified suspicion in Washington that the Russians are using their proposal to exacerbate the lack of resolution in the Senate and Congress and thereby undermine Obama's position.
In the circumstances, the best decision for Obama to take was to delay the Senate vote until it became clear whether Russian intentions were bona-fide.
Lotsa lefty rabbits tonight ..tim is flailing and woger makes a total tit of himself again claiming Ed saved the world from WW3 nonsense .. all to divert from Eds non speech today. It was like a primary school teacher welcoming the new batch of six year olds...and what was promised was a realignment of the Labour/Union relationship.... pathetic stuff from Ed boys, but keep on trying.. it amuses the rest of us..
Its going to be hugely entertaining watching how Ed Miliband handles this face saving exercise in the next few months, and just how helpful some in his own party and within the Unions will be when it comes to saving his blushes.
"Labour admitted that it was likely that the only changes Mr Miliband is pushing for in the short term was to have a more direct financial relationship with union members.
Other reforms, such as curbing union influence over the party’s policies, will not be settled until after the 2015 general election, if at all."
"Labour later confirmed that the changes will only affect individual members, and will not address other issues such as the control of union leaders to cast votes on the behalf of their members at the party’s annual conference."
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
Roger it is amazing the British Parliament changed the timetable of a US President, a lot of credit must go to Douglas Alexander.
@LiamByrneMP: Iain Duncan Smith's promises on Universal Credit just shot to pieces by his boss at the Liaison Committee.
Quite amazing given what IDS said last week. No wonder these people prefer to slag off trade unionists, disabled people, immigrants, the low paid etc etc rather than be judged by their performance
Hi evening tim - why is your syntax so different from your daytime posts ?
There was quite a nice tim on the other morning as I remember it. Quite engaging, interacting like a, well, like a...ok still not quite at the human empathy level but definitely different.
I guess that one is as we speak on a train with a set of salt digging instruments and a copy of V. Putin's "I walked with Bears" in their back pocket.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Are you really saying, that when Cameron took the motion to commence the bombing back to the house, that Ed would have dutifully marched his troops through the yes lobby.
Because the motion that was voted down, was only to give authority to commence military operations after a further vote.
Ed Miliband can hardly claim credit for wrecking the unity of the western alliance; certainly there would have been zero chance of any progress on persuading Assad and Russia to back down without military pressure.
Of course they might just be playing for time, we shall see. It might be that progress has been made despite Ed's cynical games, but I wouldn't count on it.
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
Cobblers 1. You'd have voted Labour anyway.
Cobblers 2. Miliband put forward a motion that supported military action himself. The only difference was that it had the rider 'but only when we say so too'.
Cobblers 3. There's no evidence that Obama, never mind Hollande or Cameron, was planning a major campaign. The attacks wouldn't have killed people on a massive scale, and it's unlikely that in the big picture they'd have made much difference to the number killed in the Syrian Civil War.
Cameron couldn't even get his own MPs back from weddings or his own ministers out of cupboards. The key difference in all of this is that Obama had the sense to realise he was going to lose the vote which the incompetent Cameron didnt have the first idea about
Don't you ever get bored?
Roger's point was that Ed stopped the war and intended to stop the war. He might well, inadvertently, have contributed to the delay in military action or possibly even the absence of it - but it certainly wasn't his objective as he was clearly in favour in principle of force being used as outlined in both his speech and his amendment.
@TGOHF – “Labour admitted that it was likely that the only changes Mr Miliband is pushing for in the short term was to have a more direct financial relationship with union members.”
You make it sound like Ed wants the union subs, whilst cutting out the middle man. - Surely there must me more to it than that?
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
"In the Commons, Mr Balls was ridiculed for refusing to admit his mistakes in the last Labour government, and in opposition since the election.
Mr Osborne said: ‘He is increasingly like Monty Python’s Black Knight defending that bridge.
‘When unemployment falls he says it’s but a scratch, when business confidence rises he says I’ve had worse, the recovery is just a flesh wound.
‘The limbs are falling off his economic argument and it would be a comedy if it were not for the fact Labour’s economic policies were a tragedy.’
The government has been bolstered by a run of positive data which suggests the economy is on course for a sustained recovery in the run-up to the next election. The respected OECD think tank last week upgraded its growth forecast."
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
To be fair if the Old Etonian twits in number Ten and the whips office had been competent Dave and Sam would've had a chance of their air strikes. This was a battle lost on the playing fields of Eton and the beach at Polzeath
tim
You continue to miss the point.
The purpose of seeking cross-party support on matters of national security and overseas military engagement is to present a united front to potential enemies and to reduce the opportunity for enemies to exploit domestic political division to their advantage.
Had Cameron won his vote, there would have been a small government majority for action. I agree that would have been better than a small defeat, but it would still not have achieved the goal of presenting the view of a united parliament to the international community which was based on cross-party support for the government's decision.
What Miliband did was divide the House on an amendment which was substantively the same as the motion proposed by the government. It was the action of a dishonourable and opportunistic leader who gave precedence to domestic partisan gain over the wider interests of the country.
A good and convincing piece by OGH but I suspect he is ignoring one important factor.
Understandably as a LibDem supporter himself (I think!), his argument sort of assumes that switchers to and from Labour have to pass through the clutches of the sandal wearers.
This is not so - I suspect that a very large proportion of switchers, who consider the LibDems to be largely an irrelevance, move directly between Labour and the Tories.
The very recent and very good news on the economic front has probably not yet reached the psyche of Joe Public or at least if it has, he/she is waiting to be convinced - should the recovery continue, or even accelerate over the next 6 months, then we can really expect to see some interesting action in the polls with the Tories moving above the 35% level and just as importantly with UKIP dropping below 10%.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
@TGOHF – “Labour admitted that it was likely that the only changes Mr Miliband is pushing for in the short term was to have a more direct financial relationship with union members.”
You make it sound like Ed wants the union subs, whilst cutting out the middle man. - Surely there must me more to it than that?
Ed wants direct membership enrollment and subscription by union members as a platform from which he can propose a low cap for all political party donations.
As with his position on Syria, Ed is more interested in the potential of his policies to damage the government than he is in the principle of good governance.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
How was removing any option other than the ability to send strongly worded letters in a harsh font, supposed to help the situation?
" Silence: Large parts of Mr Miliband;s speech were greeted with silence or unenthusiastic applause
Silence: Large parts of Mr Miliband;s speech were greeted with silence or unenthusiastic applause
But taking questions he faced hostility from public sector workers unhappy at spending cuts designed to cut the nation's debts.
Janice Godrich, president of the Public and Commercial Services union which has staged several strikes opposing austerity, used a question and answer session to tackle the Labour leader.
She told Mr Miliband: 'Ed Balls says this is the wrong sort of recovery, yet you're committed to the Tories' spending plans. You say the next election will be about living standards; but you're committed to the public sector pay cap.
'Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people. Can we get a clear answer: are you for or against austerity?'
After appearing taken aback, the Labour leader said: 'We are not in favour of austerity.'
But he then risked angering the unions by admitting that Labour would stick to Tory spending limits in order to appear 'credible'."
@SkyAnushka: PM & IDS on Universal Credit. We should not be "religious on timing" says PM, days after IDS staked his political rep on delivering on time
Was that his reputation as a "Loser", no change from anything else he has done
@fitalass - That of course was a classic Miliband answer. Asked a clear question - are you for or against austerity? - he answers that he's against it, and therefore plans to continue with it.
As the lady rightly said: "Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people".
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
It was going to be a smack on the wrist.
It was going to say you are not allowed, we have decided that you are not allowed to use chemical weapons.
That was all it was going to say and that was all it was designed to say, as Dave, then John Kerry then Barack Obama made clear.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Cameron tried to follow his hero Blair but Ed stuffed him good and proper and rightly so. Cameron is there to serve the public not to indulge in fantasy wars.
So after failing to understand what you were posting on health you're now moving on to reprinting the Daily Mail without pausing for breath.
Would you like to pause for a moment and confirm that you've read the information Carola and I provided and now have an understanding of the subject matter?
impossible, its a daily mail quote or some gibberish , take your pick
If it was such a matter of principle for Cameron he should've got his MPs back to support him. But he was incompetent.
tim
You are contumaciously missing the point again.
On matters of national security and overseas military deployment, the enemy is not your domestic political opponents.
In this case, it 'the enemy' is a dictator of a Middle Eastern country who has used weapons on his own people which have been proscribed by international treaties and norms. It is a country supported by foreign powers who, at best, are seeking to undermine the influence and power of the UK and its closest allies.
I can just about forgive Ed for stabbing his brother in the back to secure personal poltical gain but not his decision to betray his country for the sole advantage of his party and its leader.
This is "the matter of principle" on which we should be focussed.
If it was such a matter of principle for Cameron he should've got his MPs back to support him. But he was incompetent.
Does that principle apply to Blair and Iraq too?
Blair got his support through the lobby, (cross party) Cameron didnt even know who was there, never mind how they would vote. It was rank incompetence after overruling Hague and playing for headlines
No he cocked it up plus the staggeringly solipsistic behaviour of the rebel Tory MPs plus a few of the can't-make-it MPs was unedifying to say the least.
But that compares with the whole of the Labour Party.
Which voted against.
We've been round this block before, tim and I know that "you" are disappointed at the result of the vote and are happy to berate Dave but some lefties on here actually think that it was the right answer.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
How was removing any option other than the ability to send strongly worded letters in a harsh font, supposed to help the situation?
The option was not removed , Cameron removed it in a fit of entitlement rage, straight after the vote. He never rolled the pitch before the vote, he destroyed it in his haste to be stood with a US President the following weekend.
Cameron, as we've seen before, is a very, very lucky PM - this time wrt the Syrian vote - the irony being that on this occasion he was saved by none other than Miliband.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
How was removing any option other than the ability to send strongly worded letters in a harsh font, supposed to help the situation?
The option was not removed , Cameron removed it in a fit of entitlement rage, straight after the vote. He never rolled the pitch before the vote, he destroyed it in his haste to be stood with a US President the following weekend.
So abiding by the will of the house is entitlement rage? That's a view I suppose. An eccentric one, but a view none the less. The game was given away by the partisan cheering from the Labour benches when the outcome of the vote was announced. It showed up the real reason for Ed's maneuvers and it wasn't the good of the country.
@fitalass - That of course was a classic Miliband answer. Asked a clear question - are you for or against austerity? - he answers that he's against it, and therefore plans to continue with it.
As the lady rightly said: "Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people".
The truth is Richard that austerity was abandoned but nobody on either side wants to admit it
@jdportes: Fiscal consolidation and growth: the Chancellor's non sequitur. My article in the New Statesman: http://t.co/Y5l2gnSIHS
Portes and Blanchflower.
In forty years time they will be found on a deserted Scottish island taking turns to keep watch for austerity submarines approaching.
Like it or not, Ed Miliband is making history. If Cameron had not lost in Parliament, the bombing will have started by now.
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
Agreed Cameron tried to bounce the British Parliament into military action on Obama`s preordained timetable .
Are we here again?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
How was removing any option other than the ability to send strongly worded letters in a harsh font, supposed to help the situation?
The option was not removed , Cameron removed it in a fit of entitlement rage, straight after the vote. He never rolled the pitch before the vote, he destroyed it in his haste to be stood with a US President the following weekend.
So abiding by the will of the house is entitlement rage? That's a view I suppose. An eccentric one, but a view none the less. The game was given away by the partisan cheering from the Labour benches when the outcome of the vote was announced. It showed up the real reason for Ed's maneuvers and it wasn't the good of the country.
He should have agreed with the Labour amendment , he would then have had the space and time time, to make the case alongside the US President.
What do I know, I only trained and worked in the NHS as a staff nurse. Maybe I should just spend all day on PB trolling other posters in the hope of diverting the thread away from the fact Miliband and Balls have had a crap day at the Office.
So after failing to understand what you were posting on health you're now moving on to reprinting the Daily Mail without pausing for breath.
Would you like to pause for a moment and confirm that you've read the information Carola and I provided and now have an understanding of the subject matter?
impossible, its a daily mail quote or some gibberish , take your pick
@fitalass - That of course was a classic Miliband answer. Asked a clear question - are you for or against austerity? - he answers that he's against it, and therefore plans to continue with it.
As the lady rightly said: "Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people".
The truth is Richard that austerity was abandoned but nobody on either side wants to admit it
@jdportes: Fiscal consolidation and growth: the Chancellor's non sequitur. My article in the New Statesman: http://t.co/Y5l2gnSIHS
Portes is basing his arguments about the deficit flat-lining on the OBR March EFO.
Evidence from interim ONS monthly Public Finances Bulletins show that deficit reduction has accelerated over the first four months of this fiscal year.
Would you like to bet on whether the deficit forecasts of the next OBR EFO show an improvement or deterioration when compared with the March EFO figures?
Tim, quoting Portes a left wing economist who is against austerity, writing something against austerity in the New Stateman a left wing publication ..... that is against austerity.
Much the same as being surprised that the Pope is a Catholic.
As to whether the cuts were deep enough, I agree with those who say they were not, but that is the problem with coalitions and why we should have re-run the GE back in 2010.
@fitalass - That of course was a classic Miliband answer. Asked a clear question - are you for or against austerity? - he answers that he's against it, and therefore plans to continue with it.
As the lady rightly said: "Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people".
The truth is Richard that austerity was abandoned but nobody on either side wants to admit it
@jdportes: Fiscal consolidation and growth: the Chancellor's non sequitur. My article in the New Statesman: http://t.co/Y5l2gnSIHS
Government spending cuts were abandoned, increased taxation was not.
I was happy that the timetable Cameron was prepared for was halted and the relection called for has been achieved. He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
How was removing any option other than the ability to send strongly worded letters in a harsh font, supposed to help the situation?
The option was not removed , Cameron removed it in a fit of entitlement rage, straight after the vote. He never rolled the pitch before the vote, he destroyed it in his haste to be stood with a US President the following weekend.
So abiding by the will of the house is entitlement rage? That's a view I suppose. An eccentric one, but a view none the less. The game was given away by the partisan cheering from the Labour benches when the outcome of the vote was announced. It showed up the real reason for Ed's maneuvers and it wasn't the good of the country.
He should have agreed with the Labour amendment , he would then have had the space and time time, to make the case alongside the US President.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
@fitalass - That of course was a classic Miliband answer. Asked a clear question - are you for or against austerity? - he answers that he's against it, and therefore plans to continue with it.
As the lady rightly said: "Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people".
The truth is Richard that austerity was abandoned but nobody on either side wants to admit it
@jdportes: Fiscal consolidation and growth: the Chancellor's non sequitur. My article in the New Statesman: http://t.co/Y5l2gnSIHS
Government spending cuts were abandoned, increased taxation was not.
False. Once again the evidence.
Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change £ bn % | £ bn % | % % ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The Coalition had about a hundred more MPs than Labour but still lost.
Mr. Corporeal, whilst negative lines have always been tried, there's been some discussion on the site which does suggest that there was a much more balanced positive/negative approach to stories a couple of decades ago. In addition, trust in politics and electoral turnouts have declined dramatically over that period.
Edited extra bit: also, can I just confirm a Welsh thing? Considering having a title of Gesith, and was thinking of changing the spelling to Gesidd. In Welsh, that'd be pronounced 'Gesith', right?
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The Coalition had about a hundred more MPs than Labour but still lost.
If Ed had stuck to his agreement, rather than a tawdry political stunt, the vote would have been passed without issue. It would have resulted in Cameron being in a position of having strong cards to play, yet still have to return to the house to get final approval for military action.
Labour MP's cheering the government defeat, tell you all you need to know about the reason for the alternate motion put forward by them.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The coalition has a large majority, why do you keep deluding yourself.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The coalition has a large majority, why do you keep deluding yourself.
So the real hero's of the issue are the rebels who voted against the government? In that case why are you banging on about Ed's success?
"Roger's point was that Ed stopped the war and intended to stop the war."
I think there's plenty of evidence that Ed deliberately tried to stop any precipitate action by Obama and Cameron which was almost certainly going to happen evidenced by Cameron's recall of Parliament at ridiculously short notice an just before the week end.
Whether this delaying tactic was forced on him by wise heads in his own party I don't know. But there can be no doubt that his action on the night led to the world pausing for breath.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The coalition has a large majority, why do you keep deluding yourself.
So the real hero's of the issue are the rebels who voted against the government? In that case why are you banging on about Ed's success?
Because the combination of both has made governments reflect on their decision.
The haste has been stopped, the chance of a different solution is now been considered.
"Roger's point was that Ed stopped the war and intended to stop the war."
I think there's plenty of evidence that Ed deliberately tried to stop any precipitate action by Obama and Cameron which was almost certainly going to happen evidenced by Cameron's recall of Parliament at ridiculously short notice an just before the week end.
Whether this delaying tactic was forced on him by wise heads in his own party I don't know. But there can be no doubt that his action on the night led to the world pausing for breath.
Totally agree Roger , the world pausing for breath was important in such a terrible situation.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The coalition has a large majority, why do you keep deluding yourself.
So the real hero's of the issue are the rebels who voted against the government? In that case why are you banging on about Ed's success?
Because the combination of both has made governments reflect on their decision.
The haste has been stopped, the chance of a different solution is now been considered.
I'll say this one more time then call it quits as I'm obviously wasting my time. There was no haste, this was the first of two required motions, nothing, repeat nothing, militarily could have taken place without a second vote. Ed played politics because he was terrified of resignations in his shad cab, the cheering of the Labour benches tells you the real motive. You can't or wont't see it, so I'll leave it at that.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The coalition has a large majority, why do you keep deluding yourself.
So the real hero's of the issue are the rebels who voted against the government? In that case why are you banging on about Ed's success?
Yes of course, credit should be shared by 30 Tories who did rebel.
Yorkcity, tried to include your post as a quote, but the body of the message is too long, so here is what I attempted to say.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
The coalition has a large majority, why do you keep deluding yourself.
So the real hero's of the issue are the rebels who voted against the government? In that case why are you banging on about Ed's success?
Because the combination of both has made governments reflect on their decision.
The haste has been stopped, the chance of a different solution is now been considered.
I'll say this one more time then call it quits as I'm obviously wasting my time. There was no haste, this was the first of two required motions, nothing, repeat nothing, militarily could have taken place without a second vote. Ed played politics because he was terrified of resignations in his shad cab, the cheering of the Labour benches tells you the real motive. You can't or wont't see it, so I'll leave it at that.
Yet again you are deluding yourself, there was haste, that was why Cameron re - called parliament,he wanted originally to join military action that weekend. The British Parliament stopped that rush.
There must be a lot of haydust in Cheshire toight with all this flailing..all to no avail of course.. everybody can see what the purpose is... spotting rabbits.., very amusing
Mr. Corporeal, whilst negative lines have always been tried, there's been some discussion on the site which does suggest that there was a much more balanced positive/negative approach to stories a couple of decades ago. In addition, trust in politics and electoral turnouts have declined dramatically over that period.
Edited extra bit: also, can I just confirm a Welsh thing? Considering having a title of Gesith, and was thinking of changing the spelling to Gesidd. In Welsh, that'd be pronounced 'Gesith', right?
Is this a title you've invented or is there meaning behind it (I don't recognise it but my Welsh is very far from fluent)?
It'd be pronounced Gesith yes (dd is a th sound but a harsh sort of th, sounding like the th in 'with' rather than in say 'myth'.
Gesydd as written by Welsh Bertie certainly looks more Welsh (which brings me back to wonder if it's just a welsh word exposing my linguistic limitations).
"Roger's point was that Ed stopped the war and intended to stop the war."
I think there's plenty of evidence that Ed deliberately tried to stop any precipitate action by Obama and Cameron which was almost certainly going to happen evidenced by Cameron's recall of Parliament at ridiculously short notice an just before the week end.
Whether this delaying tactic was forced on him by wise heads in his own party I don't know. But there can be no doubt that his action on the night led to the world pausing for breath.
Totally agree Roger , the world pausing for breath was important in such a terrible situation.
Ed Miliband's single handed intervention may well have led to a pause in breath.
Perhaps it was merely the phenomenon by which endless repetition of a word makes it sound amusing, but for some reason I took pleasure in hearing Mr Miliband inform a room of brawny, scowling men how much he admired their members, and how much he needed their members, and how much he wanted to reach out to their members.
Gesith is a title in old english, it means approximately comes in latin, ie a companion of someone, generally a king or lord.
Not sure why it would need to be spelt in the Welsh manner. Also, at some point in history the hard g became soft, so iesyth might be closer (pronounced yesith). Also I think the th at the end was almost certainly unvoiced so I would have thought th would be better than dd if you want to spell it in Welsh.
In the last 24 hours, much comment has focussed on the apparent gaffe by John Kerry that left a door open for the Russians to drop their proposal to avoid a US strike on Syria.
The truth is that Kerry may have somewhat went freelance but it wasnt the gaffe. I posted last night that I was sure the US had been talking to the Russians at least in the 24 hours before the proposal went public and there was some choreography.
Now we have confirmation out of the US that this particular idea was discussed at the G20.To add to that, Kerry did have calls with the Russians in the hours leading up to the proposal going public.
The basic concept has been about for ages, but the Russians said no at the time it was floated. What caught the US short was the speed that things moved and the lack of mechanics. The big picture idea put them on the back foot.
Here's the problem....what is bringing these weapons under 'international supervision'? Are you going to take them out of a war torn country? Are you going to guard them? Are they going to be destroyed? The answer to the last looks like no right now. What you might get is that Syria will notify where they are, and pass on stock details for some kind of remote supervision and occasional onsite visit. In short, not much giving them up.
Of course, the question is where are they? There are 3 main depots but also some minor sites. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that US intelligence had lost track of some of the kit, something I notice that has been reinforced with statements coming out today that the US knows where roughly half of it is.
What makes it a right mess is that the Assad government shifted them again in advance of a possible US strike. You are now looking at 20-30 sites at least. There is no way that these could be guarded adequately under an in-country supervision regime, so realistically they'd need gathered and moved.
Meanwhile ..the slaughter goes on while fine points of diplomacy are debated at the useless UN, The Chemical weapons are still in the control of a homicidal maniac.. victory for minions is declared by supporters of minions.. Since I started writing this several peole will have died a violent death in Syria..a wonderful victory for the idiots on PB. Labour took the sabre, which could have rattled ..out of the hands of the British people and replaced it with a white flag Popcorn sales continue... t'was ever thus..
On Topic - Mr Smithson - I have been saying it for months and months.No matter what the PB Hodges, PB Gideons and PB Tories say, or how crap they think Ed M is, as long as the 2010 Lib Dem switches stay where they are now and have been for three years, there will not be a Tory government, either on their own or in coalition and more than likely a Labour one. Maybe the Tory Party need another dozen or so election strategists?
On Topic - Mr Smithson - I have been saying it for months and months.No matter what the PB Hodges, PB Gideons and PB Tories say, as long as the 2010 Lib Dem switches stay where they are now and have been for three years, there will not be a Tory government, either on their own or in coalition and more than likely a Labour one. Maybe the Tory Party need another dozen or so election strategists?
No one who was a spectator at Gordon Brown’s last stand should ever under-estimate the Left’s capacity to bicker its way to oblivion. The consequence, for unions and party alike, would be an implosion from which neither might emerge intact. If a row of almost no interest to voters becomes a chronicle of attrition, then the skirmish that Ed Miliband planned as his Agincourt may start to look like his Crimean War.
Meanwhile ..the slaughter goes on while fine points of diplomacy are debated at the useless UN, The Chemical weapons are still in the control of a homicidal maniac.. victory for minions is declared by supporters of minions.. Since I started writing this several peole will have died a violent death in Syria..a wonderful victory for the idiots on PB. Labour took the sabre, which could have rattled ..out of the hands of the British people and replaced it with a white flag Popcorn sales continue... t'was ever thus..
Your continued sympathy for the allies of Al Qaeda is noted.
I fear this is wishful thinking from Mike, who's desperate for a Lib-Lab pact in 2015 so he can show his face again at dinner parties. Apart from the anti-Iraq SWP entryists - and they wouldn't have hung around for much longer anyway - no self-respecting Lib Dem is going to ditch handsome, affable Nick in favour of Ed with his opaque opinions and eerie eyes. In fact, I can see Labour polling below their 2010 effort.
In the last 24 hours, much comment has focussed on the apparent gaffe by John Kerry that left a door open for the Russians to drop their proposal to avoid a US strike on Syria.
...
What makes it a right mess is that the Assad government shifted them again in advance of a possible US strike. You are now looking at 20-30 sites at least. There is no way that these could be guarded adequately under an in-country supervision regime, so realistically they'd need gathered and moved.
Y0kel
The decommissioning of CW is likely to be more of a symbolic act than a watertight enforcement. The key outcome must be no further use of CW in the civil war, either by Assad or by third parties using his stocks. This means that the allies can allow some cheating at the edges on retention, provided it is hidden from view. We are likely to get statements such as; "it is impossible to guarantee or verify that every chemical weapon has been removed and destroyed given the current state of the conflict in Syria, What is important is that Syria is seen and believed to be acting in good faith".
There appears to a bit of jostling within the UNSC on who drafts the eventual resolution and its scope but this kind of dispute always presages real progress.
A key diplomatic goal for the US and its allies will be to use any UNSC resolution on CW as a platform for future negotiations to find a political resolution to the Syrian civil war. I don't think the US and Russia are divided on the principle that an orderly transition based on the Assad regime, if not Assad personally, is the most feasible starting point.
Resolving the CW issue should be the beginning not the end of a negotiated solution.
On Topic - Mr Smithson - I have been saying it for months and months.No matter what the PB Hodges, PB Gideons and PB Tories say, as long as the 2010 Lib Dem switches stay where they are now and have been for three years, there will not be a Tory government, either on their own or in coalition and more than likely a Labour one. Maybe the Tory Party need another dozen or so election strategists?
....."as long as" ...... and from the header of this thread "If". That's the bet, that things don't change and people are not fickle.
Mr Brooke - The problem for the Tories is they have been playing the Ed is crap line for over two years but the percentage of 2010 Lib Dem voters who have switched to Labour has stayed between 30-40%. In reality I hope they keep playing the Ed is crap card, it just isn't budging them no matter how loud they shout it and how many people in the right wing press write it. One day, hopefully some time in July 2015 one of their many strategist will surely spot it.
Tory education news @toryeducation 3h Miliband: 'we are not going to have Free Schools under a Labour Government.'
Obviously I don't take 'Tory Education News' straight off - does anyone know if this quote is accurate? And does it mean that (contrary to previous statements, I think) free schools might be force converted or merely no new ones?
In the last 24 hours, much comment has focussed on the apparent gaffe by John Kerry that left a door open for the Russians to drop their proposal to avoid a US strike on Syria.
...
What makes it a right mess is that the Assad government shifted them again in advance of a possible US strike. You are now looking at 20-30 sites at least. There is no way that these could be guarded adequately under an in-country supervision regime, so realistically they'd need gathered and moved.
Y0kel
The decommissioning of CW is likely to be more of a symbolic act than a watertight enforcement. The key outcome must be no further use of CW in the civil war, either by Assad or by third parties using his stocks. This means that the allies can allow some cheating at the edges on retention, provided it is hidden from view. We are likely to get statements such as; "it is impossible to guarantee or verify that every chemical weapon has been removed and destroyed given the current state of the conflict in Syria, What is important is that Syria is seen and believed to be acting in good faith".
There appears to a bit of jostling within the UNSC on who drafts the eventual resolution and its scope but this kind of dispute always presages real progress.
A key diplomatic goal for the US and its allies will be to use any UNSC resolution on CW as a platform for future negotiations to find a political resolution to the Syrian civil war. I don't think the US and Russia are divided on the principle that an orderly transition based on the Assad regime, if not Assad personally, is the most feasible starting point.
Resolving the CW issue should be the beginning not the end of a negotiated solution.
This is a mess of Obamas own making. Mark Mardell (BBC) says that this could bring down the Obama presidency, or at the most make him a lame duck for 3 long bloody years.
On Topic - Mr Smithson - I have been saying it for months and months.No matter what the PB Hodges, PB Gideons and PB Tories say, as long as the 2010 Lib Dem switches stay where they are now and have been for three years, there will not be a Tory government, either on their own or in coalition and more than likely a Labour one. Maybe the Tory Party need another dozen or so election strategists?
....."as long as" ...... and from the header of this thread "If". That's the bet, that things don't change and people are not fickle.
Mr Brooke - The problem for the Tories is they have been playing the Ed is crap line for over two years but the percentage of 2010 Lib Dem voters who have switched to Labour has stayed between 30-40%.
Are you sure, that number sounds high? Off the top of my head I'd have reckoned it somewhere in the 20s (ICM is what I normally use).
" Silence: Large parts of Mr Miliband;s speech were greeted with silence or unenthusiastic applause
Silence: Large parts of Mr Miliband;s speech were greeted with silence or unenthusiastic applause
But taking questions he faced hostility from public sector workers unhappy at spending cuts designed to cut the nation's debts.
Janice Godrich, president of the Public and Commercial Services union which has staged several strikes opposing austerity, used a question and answer session to tackle the Labour leader.
She told Mr Miliband: 'Ed Balls says this is the wrong sort of recovery, yet you're committed to the Tories' spending plans. You say the next election will be about living standards; but you're committed to the public sector pay cap.
'Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people. Can we get a clear answer: are you for or against austerity?'
After appearing taken aback, the Labour leader said: 'We are not in favour of austerity.'
But he then risked angering the unions by admitting that Labour would stick to Tory spending limits in order to appear 'credible'."
Key words "appear credible"
Because Labour can only "appear" credible on the economy.
Comments
What is currently delaying the bombing of Syria is the resolve of Obama to use military intervention to enforce breaches by Syria of international norms on the use of chemical weapons,
We need to wait to see whether the current Russian initiative is designed to weaken US support for Obama within Congress or whether it is a genuine attempt to resolve the problem which triggered the crisis.
In the world of brinkmanship diplomacy, the stronger the position of the US and its aliies and the more resolute they are in support of their leaders' plans, the more likely there will be a peaceful resolution.
Russia would certainly not be proposing to assist Syria decommission its chemical weapons on the basis of Ed Milband's vacillation, indecision, duplicity and lack of clear intent.
You should know better than jump aboard stopping the rush to war bollocks. It's not true you, I would hope, know it not to be true and frankly it makes you look utterly out of touch with reality.
Of course, the sensible option would be to move to true OMOV at the same time (as that's not possible without Ed's reforms, otherwise the unions would become absurdly powerful).
Really this micro-deconstruction of everything ministers say is ridiculous.
Obama did not delay the Senate vote because he was going to lose it,
He delayed it in response to the proposal by Russia
There will be strong and justified suspicion in Washington that the Russians are using their proposal to exacerbate the lack of resolution in the Senate and Congress and thereby undermine Obama's position.
In the circumstances, the best decision for Obama to take was to delay the Senate vote until it became clear whether Russian intentions were bona-fide.
It was like a primary school teacher welcoming the new batch of six year olds...and what was promised was a realignment of the Labour/Union relationship.... pathetic stuff from Ed boys, but keep on trying.. it amuses the rest of us..
Britain stopped, America paused ! Now events are taking over. The Senate vote has been postponed. I reckon the bombing will now never take place.
Well done, Ed !
I guess that one is as we speak on a train with a set of salt digging instruments and a copy of V. Putin's "I walked with Bears" in their back pocket.
Because the motion that was voted down, was only to give authority to commence military operations after a further vote.
Of course they might just be playing for time, we shall see. It might be that progress has been made despite Ed's cynical games, but I wouldn't count on it.
Roger's point was that Ed stopped the war and intended to stop the war. He might well, inadvertently, have contributed to the delay in military action or possibly even the absence of it - but it certainly wasn't his objective as he was clearly in favour in principle of force being used as outlined in both his speech and his amendment.
You make it sound like Ed wants the union subs, whilst cutting out the middle man. - Surely there must me more to it than that?
The reason the motion failed was because EdM and the Labour Party voted against it.
Do you really think that, whatever becomes of it, the Russians would have made and the Syrians would have accepted the current offer without the threat of (non-Congress approved) force by Obama? Really?
The reality, the realpolitiks of the situation, is that this is the way our world works.
And you and tim and the others are happy that Britain has opted out of this process.
"In the Commons, Mr Balls was ridiculed for refusing to admit his mistakes in the last Labour government, and in opposition since the election.
Mr Osborne said: ‘He is increasingly like Monty Python’s Black Knight defending that bridge.
‘When unemployment falls he says it’s but a scratch, when business confidence rises he says I’ve had worse, the recovery is just a flesh wound.
‘The limbs are falling off his economic argument and it would be a comedy if it were not for the fact Labour’s economic policies were a tragedy.’
The government has been bolstered by a run of positive data which suggests the economy is on course for a sustained recovery in the run-up to the next election. The respected OECD think tank last week upgraded its growth forecast."
You continue to miss the point.
The purpose of seeking cross-party support on matters of national security and overseas military engagement is to present a united front to potential enemies and to reduce the opportunity for enemies to exploit domestic political division to their advantage.
Had Cameron won his vote, there would have been a small government majority for action. I agree that would have been better than a small defeat, but it would still not have achieved the goal of presenting the view of a united parliament to the international community which was based on cross-party support for the government's decision.
What Miliband did was divide the House on an amendment which was substantively the same as the motion proposed by the government. It was the action of a dishonourable and opportunistic leader who gave precedence to domestic partisan gain over the wider interests of the country.
Understandably as a LibDem supporter himself (I think!), his argument sort of assumes that switchers to and from Labour have to pass through the clutches of the sandal wearers.
This is not so - I suspect that a very large proportion of switchers, who consider the LibDems to be largely an irrelevance, move directly between Labour and the Tories.
The very recent and very good news on the economic front has probably not yet reached the psyche of Joe Public or at least if it has, he/she is waiting to be convinced - should the recovery continue, or even accelerate over the next 6 months, then we can really expect to see some interesting action in the polls with the Tories moving above the 35% level and just as importantly with UKIP dropping below 10%.
Watch this space!
He did not answer what MP`S of all sides wanted to know, how was limited air strikes, going to help the situation in a brutal civil war, especially when part of the rebels are probably worse than the current regime.
As with his position on Syria, Ed is more interested in the potential of his policies to damage the government than he is in the principle of good governance.
Daily Mail - 'Confusing and contradictory': Biggest union cheer comes for attack on Ed Miliband as Labour leader's speech falls flat
" Silence: Large parts of Mr Miliband;s speech were greeted with silence or unenthusiastic applause
Silence: Large parts of Mr Miliband;s speech were greeted with silence or unenthusiastic applause
But taking questions he faced hostility from public sector workers unhappy at spending cuts designed to cut the nation's debts.
Janice Godrich, president of the Public and Commercial Services union which has staged several strikes opposing austerity, used a question and answer session to tackle the Labour leader.
She told Mr Miliband: 'Ed Balls says this is the wrong sort of recovery, yet you're committed to the Tories' spending plans. You say the next election will be about living standards; but you're committed to the public sector pay cap.
'Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people. Can we get a clear answer: are you for or against austerity?'
After appearing taken aback, the Labour leader said: 'We are not in favour of austerity.'
But he then risked angering the unions by admitting that Labour would stick to Tory spending limits in order to appear 'credible'."
As the lady rightly said: "Your policies seem contradictory and they're confusing people".
It was going to say you are not allowed, we have decided that you are not allowed to use chemical weapons.
That was all it was going to say and that was all it was designed to say, as Dave, then John Kerry then Barack Obama made clear.
You are contumaciously missing the point again.
On matters of national security and overseas military deployment, the enemy is not your domestic political opponents.
In this case, it 'the enemy' is a dictator of a Middle Eastern country who has used weapons on his own people which have been proscribed by international treaties and norms. It is a country supported by foreign powers who, at best, are seeking to undermine the influence and power of the UK and its closest allies.
I can just about forgive Ed for stabbing his brother in the back to secure personal poltical gain but not his decision to betray his country for the sole advantage of his party and its leader.
This is "the matter of principle" on which we should be focussed.
But that compares with the whole of the Labour Party.
Which voted against.
We've been round this block before, tim and I know that "you" are disappointed at the result of the vote and are happy to berate Dave but some lefties on here actually think that it was the right answer.
He never rolled the pitch before the vote, he destroyed it in his haste to be stood with a US President the following weekend.
Ukraine v. England's about to start! (ITV 7.45 kick-off)
The game was given away by the partisan cheering from the Labour benches when the outcome of the vote was announced. It showed up the real reason for Ed's maneuvers and it wasn't the good of the country.
In forty years time they will be found on a deserted Scottish island taking turns to keep watch for austerity submarines approaching.
Evidence from interim ONS monthly Public Finances Bulletins show that deficit reduction has accelerated over the first four months of this fiscal year.
Would you like to bet on whether the deficit forecasts of the next OBR EFO show an improvement or deterioration when compared with the March EFO figures?
Much the same as being surprised that the Pope is a Catholic.
As to whether the cuts were deep enough, I agree with those who say they were not, but that is the problem with coalitions and why we should have re-run the GE back in 2010.
So despite addressing every issue that Ed raised into his own motion, he should then have also agreed to bend over and invite Ed to bugger him on the floor of the house, so that Ed could claim to have won some sort of victory?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Ed, following Cameron's acceptance and inclusion of the amendments he had asked for to vote on a single motion?
Here's a tip, think why the Labour benches cheered the government defeat.
Labour MP's cheering the government defeat, tell you all you need to know about the reason for the alternate motion put forward by them.
"Roger's point was that Ed stopped the war and intended to stop the war."
I think there's plenty of evidence that Ed deliberately tried to stop any precipitate action by Obama and Cameron which was almost certainly going to happen evidenced by Cameron's recall of Parliament at ridiculously short notice an just before the week end.
Whether this delaying tactic was forced on him by wise heads in his own party I don't know. But there can be no doubt that his action on the night led to the world pausing for breath.
The haste has been stopped, the chance of a different solution is now been considered.
The British Parliament stopped that rush.
It'd be pronounced Gesith yes (dd is a th sound but a harsh sort of th, sounding like the th in 'with' rather than in say 'myth'.
Gesydd as written by Welsh Bertie certainly looks more Welsh (which brings me back to wonder if it's just a welsh word exposing my linguistic limitations).
But it wasn't the allies who paused.
Ukraine 0-0 England
http://order-order.com/2013/09/10/ed-at-the-tuc-best-of-the-reaction/
Gesith is a title in old english, it means approximately comes in latin, ie a companion of someone, generally a king or lord.
Not sure why it would need to be spelt in the Welsh manner. Also, at some point in history the hard g became soft, so iesyth might be closer (pronounced yesith). Also I think the th at the end was almost certainly unvoiced so I would have thought th would be better than dd if you want to spell it in Welsh.
In the last 24 hours, much comment has focussed on the apparent gaffe by John Kerry that left a door open for the Russians to drop their proposal to avoid a US strike on Syria.
The truth is that Kerry may have somewhat went freelance but it wasnt the gaffe. I posted last night that I was sure the US had been talking to the Russians at least in the 24 hours before the proposal went public and there was some choreography.
Now we have confirmation out of the US that this particular idea was discussed at the G20.To add to that, Kerry did have calls with the Russians in the hours leading up to the proposal going public.
The basic concept has been about for ages, but the Russians said no at the time it was floated. What caught the US short was the speed that things moved and the lack of mechanics. The big picture idea put them on the back foot.
Here's the problem....what is bringing these weapons under 'international supervision'? Are you going to take them out of a war torn country? Are you going to guard them? Are they going to be destroyed? The answer to the last looks like no right now. What you might get is that Syria will notify where they are, and pass on stock details for some kind of remote supervision and occasional onsite visit. In short, not much giving them up.
Of course, the question is where are they? There are 3 main depots but also some minor sites. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that US intelligence had lost track of some of the kit, something I notice that has been reinforced with statements coming out today that the US knows where roughly half of it is.
What makes it a right mess is that the Assad government shifted them again in advance of a possible US strike. You are now looking at 20-30 sites at least. There is no way that these could be guarded adequately under an in-country supervision regime, so realistically they'd need gathered and moved.
The Chemical weapons are still in the control of a homicidal maniac.. victory for minions is declared by supporters of minions..
Since I started writing this several peole will have died a violent death in Syria..a wonderful victory for the idiots on PB.
Labour took the sabre, which could have rattled ..out of the hands of the British people and replaced it with a white flag
Popcorn sales continue... t'was ever thus..
http://www.redrag1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/red-rag-lynton-grant-and-messina-just.html
@M_Star_Online splash: "Miliband wastes his latest opportunity" pic.twitter.com/SYZPepxMFq #tomorrowspaperstoday
The decommissioning of CW is likely to be more of a symbolic act than a watertight enforcement. The key outcome must be no further use of CW in the civil war, either by Assad or by third parties using his stocks. This means that the allies can allow some cheating at the edges on retention, provided it is hidden from view. We are likely to get statements such as; "it is impossible to guarantee or verify that every chemical weapon has been removed and destroyed given the current state of the conflict in Syria, What is important is that Syria is seen and believed to be acting in good faith".
There appears to a bit of jostling within the UNSC on who drafts the eventual resolution and its scope but this kind of dispute always presages real progress.
A key diplomatic goal for the US and its allies will be to use any UNSC resolution on CW as a platform for future negotiations to find a political resolution to the Syrian civil war. I don't think the US and Russia are divided on the principle that an orderly transition based on the Assad regime, if not Assad personally, is the most feasible starting point.
Resolving the CW issue should be the beginning not the end of a negotiated solution.
Miliband: 'we are not going to have Free Schools under a Labour Government.'
Obviously I don't take 'Tory Education News' straight off - does anyone know if this quote is accurate? And does it mean that (contrary to previous statements, I think) free schools might be force converted or merely no new ones?
Because Labour can only "appear" credible on the economy.
Reality always intrudes.