Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria – How it will impact domestic politics
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria – How it will impact domestic politics
Going forward, I would caution reading too much into polling changes over the next few days and weeks, particularly if they’re sub margin of error, plus if there is Western intervention in Syria, with UK participation, there could be a boost for the Government and David Cameron’s personal ratings, in the past, there have been on occasions short term boosts for the Government and Prime…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Has he? I thought he was agreeing with everything that Cameron was saying / doing?
It seems to me that both Cameron and Miliband have failed to engage properly with their parties here. That is piss poor political management and not what the country needs when so much is at stake. Petulant name calling is just pathetic. #JCRisation
Miliband is obviously hoping that with the support of a lot of unhappy tory backbenchers he will be able to humiliate Cameron and kill all this weak, weak talk over the summer stone dead. Whether he succeeds or not this is going to get shouty and poisonous.
Politicans of both parties have in the past largely tried to avoid splits on foreign affairs on party lines. You can argue whether that is a good thing or not. Clearly the tories should have been a lot more sceptical about Blair's lies on Iraq for example. But it has helped our Foreign Secretary of whatever hue negotiate and agree matters with a degree of confidence. Without that it becomes very difficult to be a meaningful part of alliances.
International affairs rarely have much impact on voting intentions. This just might be different, not in terms of the policy but the perceptions of the leaders.
Labour toughened its stance against UK military action only a day after Ed Miliband signalled that the Opposition was likely to support Mr Cameron.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/back-from-the-brink-ed-miliband-forces-david-cameron-to-retreat-over-syria-military-action-8788612.html
Even if you were wavering over whether Ed Miliband’s decision yesterday to reject the government’s motion on Syria (before it was published) was a political stunt, it’s a little more difficult to see why the Labour leader plans to continue to oppose the rewritten motion when it comes to a vote in the Commons this evening
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/number-10-ed-miliband-wants-to-divide-the-nation-on-syria/
What's more, this breach of faith by Miliband, if that's what it is, seems to be a strategic dead-end:
Actually, the real mess for Miliband will come when he has to decide whether to back the second vote approving UK involvement in an intervention. He may have caused panic in Downing Street tonight, but he will surely find himself feeling a little jittery if and when he has to explain to his party that he really does support intervention after all.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/camerons-retreat-on-syria-vote-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/
If so, any reading of the polls will be virtually meaningless as they notorious bounce around then in any case. – As for any effect the Syria debacle will have on future polling, I think the military action carried out against Libya will provide a possible starting point for a reasonable guesstimate.
It must surely come as little surprise that having agreed a Syria position with the Prime Minister that Ed Milband then stabbed him in the back. Ed has family form after all.
The UKIP number should be +12, not -18.
(I'm assuming these numbers relate to the Cameron question?)
No it is minus 18
Total agree 36, total disagree 54.
Page 3
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/31szhcvsvt/YouGov-Times-Syria-Results-130828.pdf
Cameron's fury is white hot because for all his huffing and puffing it's not just little Ed who let him dangle in the wind with his bare arse hanging out, but his own backbenchers. So that's a definite party management issue.
Neither though can compare to Clegg. If you think his incredible stance is somehow going down well with the lib dem grass roots then I fear you shall be in for a shock come conference. This is the icing on the cake of a summer where he has yet again proved to be utterly out of touch to what most of his his party thought they stood for. Whether they start in a few months, a year or in 2015 there shall be whisper campaigns against Clegg from his own side and they will not be pleasant.
Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 31s
More bets placed on Alistair Darling to be next #Chancellor after George Osborne - Ed Balls still 7/2 fav, but Darling in from 20/1 to 8/1
However, the time to decide your position, if you're Leader of the Opposition and have pretensions to be Prime Minister, is before you give undertakings, not after.
Ed was briefed under Privy Council terms and accordingly had access to sensitive security information. He then agreed a formula going forward that enjoyed all party support and then for party advantage (very short term IMO) he reneged.
I'm unsurprised by Cameron's and the governments reaction. Ed is a wretchedly weak and snivelling piss poor excuse for a leader and the sooner the nation has done with him the better - May 2015 can't come soon enough.
Excluding Buck House, I think I’ve narrowed down the list of suspects to 11, 418.
Labour 'to vote against' Government's Syria motion
Labour will vote against the Government's motion on the principle of military intervention in Syria, a senior party source told the Press Association
BREAKING NEWS:Labour says it will vote against the government's motion on Syria live
Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister agree that Ed Miliband is a f——-g c—t and a copper-bottomed s—t.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114
Come back when you've got some statistically-siginficant data showing the trend over the parliament.
Is this meant to be 33/47? Probably just a typo on an otherwise excellent post by TSE, I should add.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/syria-lib-dem-members-poll-35939.html
Labour... treating Syria as a game..
Beyond disgusting.
Cameron has effectively given away the PM's power under the royal prerogative to wage war in favour of HoC scrutiny and a substantive vote. Accordingly and correctly on such a grave matter the LotO was engaged and briefed.
Ed agreed an all party line, reneged and dissembled. The blame lies with Ed and not a Prime Minister attempting a reasoned consensus.
The strain from Clegg's spinners is clearly showing if that's the best they can come up with. They could have surely have fit another few options in the "Yes, BUT" column as a mere four shows a distinct lack of ambition.
1. Ed agreeing in principle that gassing children should have repercussions; then
2. Ed adding some sensible conditions to his principled position (UN, etc); and then
3. Ed disagreeing in principle that gassing children should have repercussions.
He has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The strain from Clegg's spinners is clearly showing if that's the best they can come up with. They could have surely have fit another few options in the "Yes, BUT" column as a mere four shows a distinct lack of ambition.
Would the numbers for SNP voters be much less diverse ?? or are they waiting for the latest Sino/SNP foreign policy line to decide ?
The public will take notice - even though they may not fancy bombing Syria - They will be well aware that Red clearly isn't up to the job of Prime Minister.
Imagine if this character had to defend the Falkands or something do something equally serious in defence of Britains interests....
As Richard Nabavi has been saying for some time, what should really terrify Labour supporters is what the hell they would do should Miliband some-how luck himself into Downing Street on 33% of vote and after effectively losing the election.
He never even got to fight an election.
Maybe Britain gets the politicians it deserves.
What a monumental screw-up by the ever-opportunistic and increasingly hopeless Miliband.
Let's hope Cameron crucifies him for it.
The most liked comments on the Mail's site are all thanking Ed for his intervention.
It's understandable that they haven't been commented on because of Syria
Calm down old chap. Angus Robertson was quite clear about the need for actual evidence from on the ground and a UN led response when he was one of the first to demand a recall of parliament. Don't blame me that Clegg looks like a spineless yellow tory unable to say no to Cammie yet again.
I think the main substantive difference is that the Opposition amendment calls for another vote in Parliament to authorise military action once the UN has reported and the Security Council voted. This is not really enough of a difference to justify allegations of unreliability.
Today I will present a clear roadmap for deciding on the use of military force in #Syria.
That roadmap will have about as much sense as Browns '5 tests' for joining the euro...
Either way he cannot be trusted to run the Country
Few Members of Parliament come out of that episode with their reputations enhanced, and IDS certainly wasn't one of them.
What a completely incoherent and nonsensical point. Without IDS Blair would have lost the vote and not been able to go to war because most of his own party and the libs were against.
If Blair had lost, having pledged his support to Bush, he would have been obliged to resign, and there would probably have been an election.
It would have been far more advantageous politically for IDS to swing the tories into opposition to war. Far, far more.
Instead he chose to support the PM. And he was rewarded with ashes. By both sides.
So in the final analysis the SNP line is we hope the Chinese will not veto a UN resolution.
Good luck with that.
I guess Cameron could just accept the Labour version and defuse the whole thing, but the optics of doing that may not be what he's after.
That almost sounds familiar.
Absolutely the key point about Miliband, and one which will have more sway in the Palace, Washington, the capitals of NATO members and amongst the greybeards of the great and good.
Miliband's first response to crises tends to be reasonable and statesmanlike, but when he gets back to the office his shadow cabinet, union sponsors and party opportunists play on his indecisiveness. They know he can be swayed and made to follow rather than lead.
It is the inheritance of many Islington dinner parties at which Ralph wheeled out his clever children to impress guests such as Tony Benn. Policy development by port washed polemic.
Miliband's desire to force Labour onto the front pages is increasing the likelihood of military action.
The aim of the US and the UK is to force Russia to honour the commitment it made at the G8 summit to co-operate within the UNSC in the event that Syria deployed its chemical weapons. It is therefore essential that the key western powers demonstrate a united political front to allow Russia no wriggle room.
Just imagine the sardonic grin on the Russian Ambassador's face as he pens his daily report to Lavrov on UK parliamentary resolve and gives advice on how Miliband's dithering can be played to advantage in the negotiations at the UN.
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear.
Boy Miliband, what have you done?
The public doesn;t mind politicians who are complete sh8ts. Complete sh8ts are very wary of public opinion, and thus unlikely to mortgage British blood and treasure on high minded disasters.
Good luck with being Cammie's yes men on this one.
Lloyd George and Bonar Law ousted Asquith in the teeth of WW1, for example.
(The chances of Brown calling a snap election would have been much reduced had the Tories - or at least, Tory leadership - been largely against the Iraq War. In that situation, you can imagine that there would have been a sizable Tory lead, especially if it had been Clarke rather than IDS. That lead might have dropped on Brown becoming PM but I doubt we'd have seen the kind of bounce he achieved in 2007 if he'd been on the 'wrong' side too in 2003.)
@dlknowles
Ukip's last manifesto called for a 40% increase in defence spending. They don't like foreign wars. Really, who do they think is the threat?
Hardly.
The enemy are people or countries that are attacking the UK. Our defences aren't the world police
I was doing the washing-up and just realised what a site like this would have been like on July 29th 1914, the day after Austria declared war on Serbia. I wonder if a majority would have supported going to war then - by August 4th, sentiment had changed completely.
I don't think anyone is now saying "let's not wait for the UN". I'm also sure most would support a resolution calling on all sides in Syria to hand over any chemical weapons for destruction by the UN and perhaps a renewed diplomatic and humanitarian effort.
As some have argued on here, the use of chemical weapons is the tip of the iceberg of violence and destruction and ending the fighting (as well as alleviating the suffering) should be more of a priority than the destruction of chemical munitions.
1) Conservatives attempting party political point scoring by accusing EdM of party political point scoring
2) Conservatives whining that the proven liar Cameron was lied to by EdM
Southam describes it as JCR, junior school would be more appropriate. Pitt and Palmerston, Lloyd-George and Churchill, your like wont be seen again.
Pity the poor servicemen who are going to have to risk their lives on behalf of this rabble.
And the only thanks they'll get will be to appear as backdrop in some political photostunts followed by another round of defence cuts.
What the LibDems did or didn't do in 2003 is of no great interest to me.
What we know for sure is that a UN resolution calling for military action against Syria will be vetoed by Russia and Salmond's Chinese allies.
What would Salmond wish us to do then - Something or nothing? Difficult decisions are at times the very business of government. Salmond made his choice with the Chinese. Cameron and the Coalition will make theirs with Syria.
I';ve just checked it again and the commons vote for Iraq 2003 was 412 to 149. Pretty decisive.
Take 150 (?) tories from one side to the other and it looks a lot closer, however.
Could labour have carried on if Blair had been defeated until 2005 having utterly funked their biggest challenge in 2003, even with a huge majority? I'm not sure.
In effect, all that IDS achieved was to prolong the complete illusion that his enemies were a responsible party of government.