Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A bad day all round, except for the result
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A bad day all round, except for the result
It’s unlikely that many of those involved in Thursday’s debate and vote will look back on their participation with pride. Quite why parliament was recalled early when it was due to return next Monday anyway remains unclear, particularly given that the UN inspectors’ report should be published at the weekend or shortly after. The assumption has to be that irreversible steps were planned before next we…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Where did Cameron go so wrong? It's difficult to judge from afar (I'm in Asia writing a novel) but there are two things. First, he lacks a majority. Major had better numbers and still suffered defeats because the disaffected in the party can hold the power. Some of those rebels should hang their heads in shame: David Davis? I mean, come on.
Second, though, this highlights Cameron's biggest weakness and the one he has GOT to sort out. He's a posh boy, surrounded by posh boys. He desperately needs to get some working class rough and toughies around him and in the whips office: people who will stand for no nonsense, who will schmooze and threaten in equal measure, who will get the MPs behind Cameron. And it really matters because Mlliband is vulnerable. The next election is still there for the taking as an outright win, but Cameron MUST get some down-and-dirty types close in now.
Sometimes the right response is to lock yourself in a soundproof room and talk about Rwanda.
I don't know internal Conservative politics very well, but objectively that would seem like a bomb that could go off, at any time in the next couple of weeks, without warning.
@MrJones Misinformation, deception and bare-faced denials will be the way forward if any inconvenient facts surface at this stage. The politicians and the media have their narative established as to white/black hats and news will be filtered through that prism.
"But Mr Miliband, whose word may be no straighter than that conk of his"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407488/Ed-Miliband-slippery-hypocrite-trust-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html
PaddyPower still have 16/1 that Dave won't survive the year.
Anyhow I'd say there's value in that there 16/1.
Sometimes the right response is to lock yourself in a soundproof room and talk about Rwanda.
There may be a window here for Russia to reach a deal with Assad to take control of Syria's stockpile.
Politically there's a lot to be said for Obama throwing this one back to Congress. He probably wouldn't be opposed to future presidents having the checks and balances on their power restored, since he tends to be less hawkish than the median president. If they vote it down he gets to blame them for any future atrocities, and if they pass it it helps insulate him from the consequences if it goes pear-shaped.
Meanwhile he gets to bang another wedge into the generation fracture in the Republican party, with the Paul people on one side and the Neocons on the other. The argument between Rand Paul and Chris Christie is already getting quite nasty, which shouldn't do the Democrats any harm come 2016.
Hillary Clinton 3/1 (various)
Marco Rubio 10/1 (various)
Chris Christie 14/1 (various)
Jeb Bush 16/1 (Shadsy)
Paul Ryan 20/1 (Coral)
Rob Portman 20/1 (Coral)
My guess is that Ed has got this one right and by quite a margin the British will prefer framing their own foreign policy
To be fair, he then went and gave an interesting lesson on the use, abuse and manufacture of chemical weapons and how it was too easy to make unintentional mistakes with even common household cleaners that could kill or worse, make you very ill for the rest of your life.
Today, using the Internet, it is very easy to find information on how to build a nuclear weapon that even a semi competent engineering student could make, apart from getting the purified uranium and tritium.
Binary chemical weapons are a dawdle in comparison. Nastily effective and cheap, obviously a weapon that most countries (and / or "governments in waiting" / "rebels") keep in secret or have the makings and plans available just in case, in total contravention of any and all international laws.
Edited stupid error!
Control of the Senate
Dem 8/11
Rep EVS
Control of the House of Representatives
Rep 2/7
Dem 9/4
- At least five Government ministers face the sack http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277598/Ministers-face-sack-over-Syria-shambles.html
Really, the trouble has the same root as the omnishambles budget and similar frictions. The Cameroons are socially and politically isolated from their backbenchers and supporters in the country. The problem is not to get MPs behind the government but to get the government in front of (and, more crucially, in touch with) its MPs.
Ed it seems has been propelled into the status of international statesman as his lead is stiffening public resistance in both France and the US where the public were glued to the HoC debate. The Americans in particular are growing tired of their government's continual resort to war.
Who'd have thought it! Our Ed on American telly......
He was totally eclipsed - probably a good outcome if an odd one.
janemerrick23: Dr's testimony is moving, shuddering stuff on @BBCNewsnight now.
iainmartin1: Bernard HL from Paris on Newsnight right now making non-interventionists look like a bunch of pillocks.
Take this example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9646988/British-officer-killed-in-green-on-blue-attack-was-true-gentleman.html
Prince Harry is another example. So (ahem) is Simon Mann.
It's not like you to make such an unworthy attack.
Kids sent to Eton do not have a say in the matter, those who choose to join the Bullingdon do.
"Eton has a long and illustrious history of providing top-class soldiers."
The Bullingdon club has nothing to do with Eton. It's for the louche affluent power hungry students of Oxford.
"And what he did not say was that the same Commons crushed Mr Miliband’s own amendment, which was so similar to the main Government motion that the two of them could well be used in a ‘spot the difference’ children’s game. The phrase ‘children’s game’ is apt. What we have here is a Leader of the Labour Party who has skipped and giggled and gleefully footled about with matters of the highest politics.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407488/Ed-Miliband-slippery-hypocrite-trust-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html#ixzz2dWcqg5aI
Mr Miliband has said that it is right that Britain and the US make their own decisions about how to respond to the situation in Syria. “America has got to take its own judgment about what’s right for America, but Britain also has to take its own judgment about where its national interests lie and how we should be acting,” he said.
"I've just re-read Quentin Letts' piece and its rather good."
How many times can the same piece be posted on one thread?
Good bit on Ed's conk didn't you think?
"Mr Miliband has said that it is right that Britain and the US make their own decisions about how to respond to the situation in Syria. “America has got to take its own judgment about what’s right for America, but Britain also has to take its own judgment about where its national interests lie and how we should be acting,” he said."
One of the most sensible and popular things he's ever likely to say
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS8AqhxCYAEixBU.jpg:large
The paper seems OK with posters advocating the stringing up our political leaders, but wee Danny seems squeamish about anything too critical being written about him.
I believe Britain can still make a difference in Syria
Our future global position lies neither in turning in on itself, nor rushing into conflict, but in a hard-headed multilateralism... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/britain-still-difference-syria?CMP=twt_gu
Having just caught up with last night's threads, noticed the picture of the Miliband brothers in the Letts piece. It struck me that both their faces and countenances showed hints of twistedness and of insincerity. Often the face reveals the true nature of the heart.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10276370/Syria-the-finger-of-blame-for-David-Camerons-Commons-defeat.html
"Having just caught up with last night's threads, noticed the picture of the Miliband brothers in the Letts piece. It struck me that both their faces and countenances showed hints of twistedness and of insincerity. Often the face reveals the true nature of the heart."
NURSE!
"Miliband represents the apotheosis of “Adviser Culture”. He approaches any issue in precisely the same way he did when working for his mentor, Gordon Brown: he assesses problems, identifies solutions, then presents them for discussion and debate. He’s very good it. What he cannot grasp is that as leader of a major political party, it’s no longer enough to put forward a suite of options; he has to select one.
You could see this in the Commons. Miliband wasn’t speaking to the chamber, but trying to brief it. He seemed perplexed when Sir Malcolm Rifkind asked what his own position on military intervention actually was. People needed time to consider all the options, he said. Why would anyone seriously want to take a decision now? He may as well have added, “Or tomorrow. Or ever.”
It’s an approach he believes serves him well. Present him with any major issue, and he will attempt to manoeuvre himself so he is equidistant from each competing perspective. He believes in a welfare cap, but not in actually cutting anyone’s welfare. He believes in sticking to George Osborne’s spending limits, except for those projects where he thinks spending more money would help. Yesterday he tried to explain how he believes in intervening in Syria, but not in too much intervention. And not yet.
So do you have any evidence that Bullingdon Club members do not, and have not historically, gone into the armed forces?
"I hope the Little Englanders are pleased now"
Are they the imperialists who believe we should invade small counries to spread our wisdom
or those who think we shouldn't involve ourselves in other countries affairs?
I do not know members of the Bullingdon Club, but I have met members of various Miners/Social Clubs who have served.
Surely, if you need to do something positive in Syria, you first seek out the good guys (if any), and support them, rather than splat the bad guys which will help all on the opposite side, including those who are already too powerful. I'd sort of assumed the Yanks were already doing that. Everyone is choosing sides.
If Sarin is the issue, supply atropine on a major scale.
I suppose cruise missiles are more eye-catching, but you can always save them for Pyongyang.
Can we as a people redress this great imbalance? Only by kicking out the Lab/Lib/Con party and voting for something very different. A start, and only a start, can be made by voting UKIP at all opportunities. It is the best, indeed the only chance, at present, to halt the decline of the British or English, if you prefer it, as a nation.
They chose to go to university instead of join up at 18. Indeed, by the same mark your accusation could fit almost everyone who chooses to attend university, and indeed the majority of the population who have never served. Except many people join up after uni - indeed, the army used to sponsor some people through uni (I assume they still do). (*)
So you have no evidence for your assertion.
Your comment was just stupid class warfare. "Oooh, how can I bring the Bullingdon Club into this, and make them sound like cowards!"
Contemptible.
I could ask how many members of the CU Labour Club fought in Iraq.
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/labourclub/
(*) Ah, yes. http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20137.aspx
Roger,
"Are they the imperialists who believe we should invade small countries to spread our wisdom?"
When it comes to "spreading our wisdom", we're all imperialists.
In the 19th century, it was bibles, in the 21st century, it seems to be gay rights (Africa, Russia), female education (Afghanistan), or democracy (everywhere). All on the basis, that we know best, and we're doing them a favour. Although the "invasion" is selective.
At least, recognise the hypocrisy.
Thank you for a balanced and considered piece - a contrast to some of the recent late-night threads.
Watching John Kerry last night, he either has fantastic on-the-ground intelligence or was flying a huge kite.
The USA often acts as if they are still trying to win the wild West (of USA) and often try to be quickest on the draw when dealing with matters of foreign policy, as shown by their track record.
The world, especially the Muslim part, is rapidly changing and extremely complex and does not think, believe and react in the same way as those who advise Obama. So it may be best not to follow the USA's lead until they wise-up more.
I continue to believe the domestic effect has been grossly exaggerated by the media. Few people now read papers or watch the TV news. David Cameron lost the vote but he dared to do what Blair failed to do, he let Parliament decide.
Just watched Dan Hodges on SKY explaining his resignation from the Labour party after nearly 30 years. His media comments about Bland the Younger are not going to get any better for the Labour leadership.
"Nail hits head. From the Hodges article."
I don't think many who wish Labour well will be disappointed by those few paragraphs from Hodges article. It just reads like an article from a Telegraph Tory writer and a rather vanilla one at that. Without his 'honest broker' status he becomes pointless
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ignore-talk-of-camerons-humiliation-its-public-opinion-on-syria-that-really-matters-8791051.html
He manages to be nicer than most to both David Cameron and Ed Miliband.
My only addendum is that he correctly sums up the public mood today. What will the public mood be in six months' time on this subject?
We all know where you stand, but you are beginning to sound a bit like tim
A couple of things could go wrong for him though.Assad could gas a massive number of people and put him in a difficult position and the Americans could snub him like Reagan snubbed Kinnock.But Obama is in a weak position too as of today,given he`s forced to declare it will a `limited intervention` after putting out unclassified information given the force of public opinion in the U.S
No-one could ever call the Foreign, Transport or Communities Secretaries "posh boys". No-one could ever call Ed Balls, Chucka or Harriet Harman anything other than from a privileged background. I still find it funny that Balls joined the Conservative Club at University.
And that is a criticism I would aim at Tony Blair.
' A backbencher who attended says: “The Prime Minister spent a lot of time talking about how a vote against the Government on this issue was playing into Labour’s hands and one person pointed out that this wasn’t about Labour – it was about Syria.” '
Perhaps one of the cheerleaders can tell us yet again how it was only Labour which was playing party politics.
Then we had, for the BBC, a surprisingly vigorous interview of Ed himself by John Pienaar where the BBC played voice pops of how people felt ashamed for their country, pushed the Paddy line and queried why we abandoning 100 years of opposition to the use of chemical weapons and 50 years of the special relationship. He was also accused of lying to the PM. Ed stuck to his guns (well not guns but you know what I mean) but it was not comfortable by any means.
Then we had John Simpson explaining dismissively that you simply could not punish someone for the use of chemical weapons in 6 months time, that time was of the essence and if we were going to do anything it really had to be now.
Despite being very far from keen on intervention myself I have to say it made the arguments for intervention quite well. Ed's line that we should still be involved in seeking a political settlement seemed frankly pathetic. Why anyone should take our views seriously now was not explained.
I think the polling pattern referred to downthread is indicative of a rallying behind the troops and it is difficult to see that effect if our troops are not involved but it is possible the publics' views on all of this may well be more volatile than seemed likely when the vote was taken.
I think you may find this rather hard to sustain when the next set of party and personal ratings polls come in.
Why did anyone think he was ever Labour?
The Army Undergraduate Bursary is worth between £6000 and £8000, depending on the length of your university course.....
I shouldn't think 8k is an amount that will bother the individuals featured in the Mail article.
Such words will haunt David Cameron.The rush to recall Parliament (presumably on an Obama timescale led to a lost vote which could well a victory which could well have been a victory a few days later.
First of all the haste led to both the public and MP's feeling they were being bounced into a decision and that feeling provoke sa strong anti reaction ,so Cameron had not learnt the lessons of Iraq.
The haste also interfered with the normal whipping process for a crucial vote.No doubt it was extra difficult because MP,s were returning from holiday but for the whips get the numbers so wrong was unforgivable.Could a little Etonian arrogance have also played a part?
And finally the rush meant critical evidence such as yesterday's statement by Kerry plus further media coverage and initial feedback from UN weapons inspectors could have contributed to a different result on Monday vote.
Overall a powerful demonstration that the cock up theory of event handling is alive and well.
However the result does have the benefit of sending a signal to the US that the special relationship is not a one way street of providing a fig leaf for US military action
"What's it to do with us." or "Thank God we didn't get involved."
I'm only saying or repeating what iIthink and the only people I have attacked on PB are politicians of various parties. I have never instigated an attack on a PB contributer, although I have replied to attacks on me.
There are too many on here and particularly in UKIP who seem to believe in government by opinion poll but the measure of a great politician is to convince the voters that his policy is correct and change public opinion to agree with him . Unfortunately today we do not seem politicians who have enough conviction to even try .
Still its got him a nice career hasn't it.
" Most people don’t care about the “humiliation” of losing a vote in the House of Commons. They will say, “Thank goodness for that.”
The US & France will do "something" and nothing much will change- apart from pictures of dead children caused by Franco-American missiles the Assad regime will tirelessly peddle.
Cameron needs to get in touch with his own back benchers - and Miliband needs to pray nightly that Assad does not use Sarin again.
You would have thought you would have approached this in as different a way as possible.
The only novel point was trying to build cross party consensus in a vote by by calling the LotO a f****** c*** etc.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS7KE_fCYAEjRNp.jpg:large
So when you're hitting refugee convoys, commuter trains and Chinese embassies by mistake you can clearly explain why helping Al Qaeda is in the interest of the people of Syria and Britain.
I think there is still a complete air of unreality about so much of this debate. Were our 5 tomahawks really supposed to give the UK PM control or even much of a say on what the US President targetted? Were we supposed to be given control of the timing of the exercise on this basis?
As in Iraq the UK was, at best, along for the ride with a right to be informed and occasionally consulted. Expecting any more is wildly unrealistic. If we don't want to play on those terms we don't play. That is our option. In the real world so much of Ed's supposed road map was total fantasy.