Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Winderemere, Bowness North By-Election Preview: August 29th

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Winderemere, Bowness North By-Election Preview: August 29th 2013

Windermere, Bowness North on South Lakeland (Lib Dem Defence)
Last Local Election (2012): Lib Dem 34, Con 13, Lab 4 (Liberal Democrat majority of 17)

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • This is a local election for local people! There's nothing for you here!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p006vm6j
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Prime Minister Miliband.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Today Cameron had the chance to make his case for war. He failed. Not says me. Says parliament.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Jim Fitzpatrick resigns as Shadow Transport spokesman due to Labour's stance over Syria:

    http://labourlist.org/2013/08/shadow-minister-resigns-from-labour-front-bench-over-syria-vote/

    Anyone know what Jim's stance is?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RobD said:

    Jim Fitzpatrick resigns as Shadow Transport spokesman due to Labour's stance over Syria:

    http://labourlist.org/2013/08/shadow-minister-resigns-from-labour-front-bench-over-syria-vote/

    Anyone know what Jim's stance is?

    Who cares ?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    RobD said:

    Jim Fitzpatrick resigns as Shadow Transport spokesman due to Labour's stance over Syria:

    http://labourlist.org/2013/08/shadow-minister-resigns-from-labour-front-bench-over-syria-vote/

    Anyone know what Jim's stance is?

    Anyone know who Jim is?

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Syria: It wasnt me.

    The other night I posted that there was some finger pointing within the regime over who had done what as regards the alleged chemical weapons attack and some were denying that they had anything to do with it.

    US media is reporting just today that one of the strongest intelligence intercepts in US hands is communications between senior Syrian senior officials after the event demanding to know how a chemical weapons attack ended up killing so many people.

    Suggests that the information posted the other night was possibly correct.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Jim Fitzpatrick is of the opposite tendency. Opposite to Ed Leigh, I mean.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    surbiton said:


    Who cares ?

    Maybe his constituents?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    GeoffM said:

    RobD said:

    Jim Fitzpatrick resigns as Shadow Transport spokesman due to Labour's stance over Syria:

    http://labourlist.org/2013/08/shadow-minister-resigns-from-labour-front-bench-over-syria-vote/

    Anyone know what Jim's stance is?

    Anyone know who Jim is?

    I can't believe Ed now has shadow ministers resigning because they think he's a warmonger. What a mess! And last night's shenanigans were all aimed at keeping Ed in with the piecenik crowd. Ed's under fire from all sides. It's a complete Labour cock up.
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    Absolute madness and really quite stressful that our government could be so stupid to get involved with this war. Cameron deserves to suffer for so badly misreading the national mood. It's Obama's hole - let him dig himself out of it.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    FPT Fitalass. Maher doesn't necessarily have control of the chemical stockpile, its the airforce that holds it and controls it. Whether the Assad name carries some kind of weight that he can go demand it I have no idea if the info I posted below is correct then its possible it wasnt quite expected to be as big a hit as it was.

    Pointing the finger at one of Assad's key ground strike forces is possibly based in truth but its also convenient as any retaliatory strike is possibly going to hit 'those units responsible'.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Surbiton... PM Milliband..Run.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT @tim:

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS
    Tory Edward Leigh says he does not believe PM will ever hold crucial second vote on #syria cos he knows cannot win it


    I both expect and hope that Cameron will not need to hold a second vote.

    But the reason for him not doing so will be that Hague has succeeded in his diplomatic goals. It will not be for lack of parliamentary support for authorising military intervention.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    If Ed has his shadow ministers resigning after last night's 'blinder' what's going to happen when he signs up to military action when the UN reports? Labour is in tailspin. Surely Ed has to reject all interventionism now. If he doesn't then the PLP will explode in his face. Ed's in more trouble than even I thought possible.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    I watched Cameron and Milliband open the debate today.

    Cameron was very accomplished in his delivery, but would not address Ian Martin point from the Telegraph.

    "Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"

    Milliband was very nervous to start maybe understandbly, when the debate is taking your country in to war.
    However he did not state his case, as succintly as Ian Martin and he needed to for the sake of all the people , who need an opposition to hold the government to account.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Yorkcity said:


    However he did not state his case

    He has no case, which is why he was unable to state it.

    He is prepared to support action, maybe, at some point, or not.

    Swift? Decisive? Weak, weak, weak...
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Surbiton, I see from the previous thread you still haven't worked out that there are multiple varieties, of Harrier with differing capabilities. Still it appears at least one other person, in the form of Geoff Hoon, was equally ill informed.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Ed did his damnedest to appease the anti-war brigade in his own party and what happens? He gets shadow ministers resigning because they say they consider him a warmonger. Is this really about Syria or is something more sinister going on for Ed?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Scott

    It is Cameron's job to make the case for war. He cannot do it! Even your own MPs see this.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?
  • "If Ed has his shadow ministers resigning after last night's 'blinder' what's going to happen when he signs up to military action when the UN reports? Labour is in tailspin. Surely Ed has to reject all interventionism now. If he doesn't then the PLP will explode in his face. Ed's in more trouble than even I thought possible."

    ahaha ! Priceless. The worst day for David Cameron since the election and it's Labour who's in a tailspin.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    surbiton said:
    The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing.

    Flip, flop, dither, blather.

    Can you pin the tail on this donkey, Surby?

    ضعيف، ضعيف، ضعيف
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Scott_P said:

    Yorkcity said:


    However he did not state his case

    He has no case, which is why he was unable to state it.

    He is prepared to support action, maybe, at some point, or not.

    Swift? Decisive? Weak, weak, weak...
    Scott selective quoting I see he has a case its the same as Ian Martin`s.

    The full quote is here.

    However he did not state his case, as succintly as Ian Martin and he needed to for the sake of all the people , who need an opposition to hold the government to account.

  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    Well it looks increasingly like Ed's refusal to take "Yes" for an answer will prevent the UK from acting on this, the first time WMD have been seriously used in the 21st century. Tomorrow will be chaos, but the real story will be what our European allies and the US think of us.

    France to America: "The Brits are no longer with us. They say there's just too much evidence that the WMDs exist this time."
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    IOS said:

    Scott

    It is Cameron's job to make the case for war. He cannot do it! Even your own MPs see this.

    Jim Fitzpatrick's resignation wasn't in the algorithm was it IOS?

    Better check the logic quick.

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    York City

    Scott doesn't have much else to do with his life. Deep down he knows this.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Yorkcity

    The 'full' quote does not contain Ed's case, he has no case and was therefore unable to state it
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AveryLP said:

    surbiton said:
    The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing.

    Flip, flop, dither, blather.

    Can you pin the tail on this donkey, Surby?

    ضعيف، ضعيف، ضعيف
    Are you talking about Prime Minister Miliband in such rude manner, Avery ? Have you also been to the Craig Oliver School of Manners ?
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    surbiton said:

    AveryLP said:

    surbiton said:
    The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing.

    Flip, flop, dither, blather.

    Can you pin the tail on this donkey, Surby?

    ضعيف، ضعيف، ضعيف
    ... Prime Minister Miliband ...
    It really is fantasy night, Surby.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Scott_P said:

    @Yorkcity

    The 'full' quote does not contain Ed's case, he has no case and was therefore unable to state it

    Scott this is about going to war not your tweets.

    Can I as you one question do you agree with Ian Martin comment below in your own words please.

    "Cameron says" he simply wants to deter Assad from using this stuff in future. But that is simply not credible. Bombing the regime would obviously be interpreted by Syria and its allies as a change in the status of our involvement"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Yorkcity said:


    Scott this is about going to war

    "This" is about Ed's case. He doesn't have one.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Jim Fitzpatrick has seen what the smarter posters on here noticed yesterday: that there isn't a fag paper's width of difference between Cameron and Miliband's position. Ed was foolish to allow that charade about humiliating Dave and calling all the shots to get out of control last night. It merely invited scrutiny, and has left Ed hopelessly exposed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Voting's at 10pm, right? What time is the result expected?

    In unrelated news, Amazon now wants more tax info (to satisfy US authorities) and won't sell books of authors who don't provide it. Not had a look at the 'interview' they want to do but I'm irked by the encroaching tentacles of the IRS.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    Wee Dougie
    Differences are
    (1) they want compelling evidence that Assad is responsible. Not sure what that means.
    (2) they want a vote on the UN weapon inspectors report. Vote on what?
    (3) they want further consideration given to consequences for neighbours. Not sure how.
    (4) authorisation of force is time limited.

    A lot clearer in fairness than Ed was earlier but still asking a lot more questions than it answers. We could argue about what each of these steps means forever. The sons of Brown remember the 5 tests for the Euro.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Scott_P said:

    Yorkcity said:


    Scott this is about going to war

    "This" is about Ed's case. He doesn't have one.
    I asked you a question could you give an answer, it would be good to here your own thoughts on this question.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    Do we know what are the expected results of the votes tonight?
  • @Yorkcity.
    What reaction do you want from me?
    I posted the results of the ballot when they were announced.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Oh dear.

    The Russian convened meeting of the five permanent members of the UNSC didn't get very far.

    UNITED NATIONS — A meeting of the U.N. Security Council's permanent members ended quickly Thursday with no sign of progress on an agreement over Syria's crisis.

    The meeting Thursday afternoon started breaking up after less than an hour, with the ambassadors of China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States steadily walking out.

    It was the second time in two days that the five Security Council powers came out of a meeting on Syria with no progress. On Wednesday, the five countries met to discuss a resolution proposed by Britain to authorize the use of military force against Syria in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds near Damascus.

    Russia remains firmly opposed to such action, saying there is no evidence the Syrian regime was responsible for the attack, as the U.S. and its allies contend.

    British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant looked grim as he walk past reporters Thursday, saying "no comment." The other ambassadors also did not speak to reporters.

    A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private, said Russia called Thursday's meeting. Russia's U.N. mission refused to comment.


    All we can say is that at least they met!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    @Yorkcity.
    What reaction do you want from me?
    I posted the results of the ballot when they were announced.

    Apologies I missed that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited August 2013
    saddened said:

    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
    Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...

    Allegedly, of course. :-)

    Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01
    http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    As ever in politics it is the too clever b y half blinder that lands 'em in the shit
    Copper bottomed shit.,
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    saddened said:

    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
    saddened said:

    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
    Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...

    Allegedly, of course. :-)

    Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01
    http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
    Yes wouldn't be like the crabs to be less than honest to support their toys, think Typhoons and harrier.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    saddened said:

    saddened said:

    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
    saddened said:

    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
    Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...

    Allegedly, of course. :-)

    Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01
    http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
    Yes wouldn't be like the crabs to be less than honest to support their toys, think Typhoons and harrier.

    People should never underestimate inter-service rivalry. Whenever you hear a pronouncement on the Navy by a RAF Air Chief Marshal, or the Navy by an army General, always remember they're looking after their own service first.

    This is getting way off-topic, but I've no military background and always wondered why the RAF were referred to as 'crabs', particularly by the navy crowd. So I just looked it up:

    http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_Royal_Air_Force#Origins_of_.27Crab.27
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    Clear the lobbies.

    Anyone got any steer as to how this is likely to go?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    The Ayes have it, the ayes have it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    Or do the neighs ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    I'm doing something else but the whole thing is great theatre.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited August 2013
    @tim

    I still haven't heard any PB Tories cheering on this good news

    @jdportes: Rise in immigration: bad news for govts absurd net migration target is good news for economy: http://t.co/Cq33E7naDO


    tim

    This is the third time you have posted this statistic.

    You really must research the original ONS report before relying on secondary sources.

    Here are the first three bullet points from the ONS report's "Key Findings":

    • Latest provisional data show that there was a net flow of 176,000 Long-Term migrants to the UK in the year ending December 2012. This is lower than the estimate of 215,000 in the year to December 2011, but it is not a statistically significant fall.

    • 497,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending December 2012, which is a statistically significant decline from the 566,000 who immigrated during the previous year. This decrease has caused the fall in net migration.

    • 321,000 emigrants left the UK in the year ending December 2012, which is a statistically significant decrease from the 351,000 who emigrated during the previous year.
    [My bolding]

    Do your homework, tim, do your homework.



  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    This is the vote on the Labour ammendment
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    I hope they vote to stay out of it. I'm very sorry about everyone & anyone caught up in any kind of violence wherever they may be. But we've intervened in too many places without improving the lot of man-and-woman-kind in any of them, as far as I can see.

    I think we just have to accept we can't hold back the rising tide of violence world-wide.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    edited August 2013
    So Clegg "today has seen the house at its best" has it? And despite people saying and thinking what they sincerely believe they're then expected to be whipped to support something which they don't believe. What utter crap.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    There is a chance of course that both the amendment and the motion are defeated. Some tories will not support the motion but I don't see them supporting the amendment either.

    Now that would be a mess.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    @Avery.

    That's why it's such an idiotic pledge, Cameron can fail to meet his own pledge because not enough people are leaving the country.
    Amazingly stupid to set such a parameter to be judged by don't you think?

    Get UK unemployment below 5% and I would support free movement of labour.

    That is the key issue.

  • Labour amendment negatived by 332-220.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Amendment (b) vote:

    Ayes - 220
    Noes - 332

    The Noes have it
  • Match to the coalition....
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Opposition Motion

    Ayes 220 Noes 322

    The Noes have it. The Noes have it.

    Ed plays a blunder.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    edited August 2013
    220-332

    Not even close. Where are the Labour MPs?

    Edit so that is 38 Labour MPs + whatever hangers on voted for this amendment who did not support Miliband. Wow.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Only 3 things matter re: a US-led strike

    There are plenty of nations willing to give political cover
    There is a supporting regional base infrastructure
    Congress leans in favour, which is what tonight's briefing is about

    Two are in place.
  • Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    What idiot told Ed that he had the numbers?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Labour motion on #syria defeated by 112 votes. Seems a number of Labour MPs did not turn up and/or support their motion.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    TSR2 was a brilliant piece of kit, a low level bomber, designed as a mouse and via committee, built as an elephant. Once the USSR had built look down radar and the planes to fly it, the TSR2 was redundant.

    Funny thing was, the Buccaneer was far superior and walloped the USAF in exercises in Arizona and Utah.

    saddened said:

    RobD said:

    Who needs an aircraft carrier when you have an RAF base in Cyprus?

    True Akrotiri, does have the advantage of being local and unsinkable. But the discussion in this case revolves around surbitons remedial education requirements.
    Using Cyprus as a base reminds me of when the Royal Navy's CVA-01 aircraft carrier was cancelled in 1963. To prove the case that land-based aircraft were better than a carrier, the RAF moved Australia 600 nautical miles so it was in range of the TSR-2 ...

    Allegedly, of course. :-)

    Such a shame that the TSR-2 was cancelled as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01
    http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Miliband couldn't even carry all his own mps let alone anyone else
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SamCoatesTimes: Around 100 MPs have not turned up to tonight's vote....
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Around 100 MPs didn't turn up according to the Times.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_P said:

    @SamCoatesTimes: Around 100 MPs have not turned up to tonight's vote....

    Well there are two votes, one might be more inclined to abstain form the Opposition motion.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    Scott_P said:

    @SamCoatesTimes: Around 100 MPs have not turned up to tonight's vote....

    What a disgrace.

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    George Eaton @georgeeaton

    220 votes for Labour amendment suggests at least 37 of the party's MPs did not vote.

  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104

    Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.

    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. See, for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)

    The Americans realised that chemicals such as VX could be so incredibly dangerous and effective that they swapped their thermo-nuclear knowledge for details of VX with the British:
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/vx-sarin-tabun-nerve-weapon-podcast
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    Gov't motion vote ?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Labour motion on #syria defeated by 112 votes. Seems a number of Labour MPs did not turn up and/or support their motion.

    Ed better hope that they were just trapped in the lavatory. If, like Fitzpatrick, they've concluded that Ed's a warmonger and mini-Cameron then Ed could be in serious trouble.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Carola said:

    Around 100 MPs didn't turn up according to the Times.

    Well around 90 did not vote allowing for the tellers but I expect there were a number of abstainers who did actually turn up .
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    norman smith @BBCNormanS

    Only 220 out of 257 Labour MPs back their own motion suggests number beleive Ed Miliband shd have gone further in ruling out military action

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838

    Carola said:

    Around 100 MPs didn't turn up according to the Times.

    Well around 90 did not vote allowing for the tellers but I expect there were a number of abstainers who did actually turn up .
    Staying seated on the green benches is fine I think. being AWOL is not. The effect is the same, but one shows you are abstaining with a conscience.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.

    I don't agree. You also missed a third: biological. The term 'NBC' refers to Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, and all three are generally seen as WMD's.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Definitions_of_the_term
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/108951/chemical-weapon/274179/Weapons-of-mass-destruction
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,838
    Can't carry his own MPs. Heard this one before..
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    norman smith @BBCNormanS

    Only 220 out of 257 Labour MPs back their own motion suggests number beleive Ed Miliband shd have gone further in ruling out military action

    Ed couldn't go further in ruling out military action. He didn't rule it out at all. He supports it. Maybe. Probably. At some point. Or not.

    Swift. Decisive.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    I suspect that this will be a lot closer but that was a big defeat for Labour and I can't see them reversing it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Bloody right wing press...

    @GdnPolitics: Syria divisions laid bare as Tories savage Ed Miliband http://t.co/AKC1Atnd8s
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    It is worth remembering before we pile on too hard to Ed that Cameron may well not carry 100% of his MPs either. Given Ed's motion was entirely optional though, it does seem a tad foolish to have gone through with it given this.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    I wonder what effect (if any) the BBC report will have
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Government vote:

    Ayes - 272
    Noes - 285

    The Noes have it
  • Government motion defeated by 285-272.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Hurrah!
  • Did not see that coming....
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Cameron as to go
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Cameron is DEFEATED by 13 votes.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    tim said:



    Cameron claims 14 chemical weapons attacks before he developed his new found sense of urgency doesn't he?

    Yeah I thought that was strange.
  • RedRag1RedRag1 Posts: 527
    Is this Stark Dawning chap having a conversation with himself? It's all rather amusing to read.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited August 2013
    Govt. motion rejected. Noes have it.

  • Anyone who uses the expression "WMDs" is either a propagandist or a buffoon. Chemical weapons are no more or less bad than other mundane weapons. Nuclear weapons are utterly catastrophic and could put an end to civilisatio nin the northern hemisphere. There is no honest reason to lump the two together: it's only done to give Western leaders an excuse to get their war on.

    I don't agree. You also missed a third: biological. The term 'NBC' refers to Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, and all three are generally seen as WMD's.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Definitions_of_the_term
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/108951/chemical-weapon/274179/Weapons-of-mass-destruction
    I'm quite familiar with NBC, thank you, but biological weapons are pretty much an irrelevance these days. WMD is just a term used to pretend that sarin and VX are super-duper scary, requiring extreme reactions. It's all bollocks, perpetrated by the cynical to gull the ignorant.
  • So both motions rejected. What now then?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,702
    Resign
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Worse for Cameron than Ed M
This discussion has been closed.