Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Next Foreign Secretary betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Next Foreign Secretary betting
Following on from the House of Commons vote on military action in Syria, Labour sources claimed that William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, was “very, very angry” and threatened to quit over David Cameron’s decision to go straight to a parliamentary vote.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/10279019/Britain-giving-in-to-sharia-councils-says-Norways-anti-immigration-leader.html
and this person
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/lib-dems-beaten-by-bright-orange-and-yellow-fascist-2013050367665
I think Cameron is in more danger than Hague, because Hague's future depends on him and Cameron keeping cool, which they usually do, whereas Cameron's depends on his 46 least stable MPs.
I say: it doesn't matter whether Gareth Bale plays for Spurs or Real Madrid, as long as he's beautiful.
Mao or Deng ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10278702/EU-plans-to-fit-all-cars-with-speed-limiters.html
"A geek is not a weed, a wimp or a dweeb. Although weeds, wimps and dweebs can be geeks if they work at it. Wonks can be geeks, but more usually tend to be nerds. Nor are geeks dorks. Dorks are always American.
As The Times reports today, the term “geek” has ceased to be an insult. A survey of a thousand people has revealed that established, pre-eminent dictionary definitions of the term (“an unfashionable or socially inept person” — Oxford English Dictionary; “boring and unattractive social misfit” — Collins) no longer have mass support. Thus, they are bound soon to change. Dictionaries are read by nerds, and possibly compiled by them, too, but geeks do the PR.
The change, at any rate, is overdue. The geek is a new phenomenon. He (or increasingly, she) is an evangelist. He values knowledge not for personal advancement (unlike a nerd) or for social ends (a wonk) but as a fun thing to tell other geeks. You will have seen them on your television, on prime-time documentaries and panel shows, spreading the wide-eyed joy of whatever it is that they are geeks about. Nerds and wonks, by contrast, only get on sports shows and the news... >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3857830.ece
"... Labour MP Jon Cruddas admits that “historians will look back on the past few decades and identify immigration as perhaps the major change to our country.” Not everyone thinks it is a change for the better. According to a weekend poll of 20,000 people, 60 per cent believe immigration has brought more disadvantages than advantages. Under Blair and Brown, Labour’s approach to immigration was voodoo economics masquerading as respectable politics. Its 2005 manifesto, all 112 pages, was a masterpiece of obfuscation, devoting just 16 lines to “Migration: the facts”.
Instead of setting out the possible consequences of a policy that would result in 1.5 million net (legal) immigrants in seven years, 2004-2010, it simply stated: “Skilled migrants are contributing 10-15 per cent of our economy’s growth”. No mention of housing shortages, pressures on schools or anything else remotely negative. The rest was a red herring about how much business visitors and tourists spend in Britain, which has nothing to do with immigration, and a wholly misleading paragraph on asylum seekers, creating an impression that Labour was on top of the problem. This was a false prospectus. Had similar claims been made by company directors, they would be facing a ban from corporate life."
Mail and last of the spreadsheets for you.
Would Osborne fancy it? George has contacts in Washington, and now might be a good time to step aside as Chancellor -- he can spin his tenure as having rescued the UK economy from the abyss and now we can see the recovery. It might also provide a reason for not being involved in the party's losing 2015 election campaign (where he'd be in danger of being squeezed out anyway). 6/1 against is not hugely tempting, as you can get 5/1 against Hague going (and iirc there is or was somewhere a "will Osborne still be Chancellor?" market) but if there were an interregnum between Hague resigning and a replacement being chosen (which I doubt) then this might be where my money goes.
Working class voters in smaller cities and rural areas supported the Nazis in droves.
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/sep/year-go-yes-point-ahead
@GavinHewitt Another sign of the struggling French economy. Auto registrations down 11% last month. Fiat and Renault buck the trend.
Interesting poll. Either Panelbase-slight lead for 'Yes' or Yougov-2 to 1 for 'No' are going to have egg on their face.
Might I suggest he joins Cousin Seth on that Cleethorpes holiday.
With Iraq heavily influencing Syria policy, I cannot see hammonds gaffe as anything more than mildly amusing, and I saw it live.
Now if EdM voted to support bombing that would:
1) Put him in opposition to a large majority of the public
2) Split the Labour party
Why would he want to do that ?
Perhaps because politicans, journalists etc only experience middle class rural areas either by living or taking holidays in those parts.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/3376676
4th LibDem MP to do so
You see we can all make similar comments.
If you want to intervene you need to explain:
1) What the goal is
2) How you are going to acheve that goal
3) What the consequences will be
4) How you are going to deal with those consequences
So far none of the interventionists have managed to do that, most aren't even willing to attempt to do so.
"Or just the latter, depending what happens in the House..."
It seems we have a very strange way of policing the world now. If a country breaks an international law such as using chemical weapons any country without needing UN approval can take unilateral action.
This is now about to happen with the US and Syria but what's to stop any country with a gripe or wanting to try out their arsenal finding fault with another country? The evidence doesn't need to be established by anyone other than the country choosing to take action.
Both leaders have a shared political interest in avoiding the party splits that a new vote on military action would cause."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/it-suits-both-cameron-and-miliband-move-syria-there-wont-be-second-vote
Thanks to the likes of you we are now not even in a negotiating stance.. how stupid can Labour get..
Is it a spaceship.....No it's Doddy!
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb-bill-cannon.jpg
5. And how many people will be killed or maimed carrying out that action because that is the SOLE responsibility of the country taking action
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/02/scottish-households-better-off-reject-independence
"Scottish households 'would be £2,000 better off if voters reject independence'
George Osborne to argue that remaining in the UK would boost real incomes in Scotland by 4% over the next 30 years"
"I can't foresee any circumstances" where MPs would be asked to vote again on Syria action - UK Deputy PM Nick Clegg bbc.in/18wHZud
So I guess your answer is no. It's so easy to sentence people to gassing when you're safe in your home thousands of miles away. Until the use of chemical weapons spreads, which is one of the not-insignificant risks of not taking action.
And I am getting fed up with this inane rebels = AQ talk. Yes, there are some AQ groups amongst the rebels, but the rebels are not all AQ. There are some good people fighting not for religion, but to remove an evil man. There are also some highly dodgy groups on Assad's side.
Since you seem to feel free to take the Syrian line that any intervention helps AQ, I can feel free to say that your inaction supports the regime that likely not only gassed civilians, but also did the various Hama massacres and other hideous enterprises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
Be careful which mast you nail your colours to.
So you are blaming the wrong party.
On your perpetual shroud-waving, over 100,000 Syrian people have been killed already in this civil war, not just the thousand gas victims. No-one is talking about stopping the war.
"...This is how Westminster sees success: by "forcing" people to do what they wanted to do, which would be achieved, in Ed Miliband's case, by doing that which he'd given the impression he would do last week, before he changed his mind and didn't do it.
Just look at the language: "Ben Bradshaw, a former Labour Cabinet minister, suggested [my emphasis] he would now support a second Parliamentary vote being called." Well. If members of the stature of Mr Bradshaw are now suggesting that they support another vote, on a motion that would – casuistry aside – have to be substantively identical to the one voted down 96 hours ago, one wonders: why didn't you support the vote last week?...
"There are some good people fighting not for religion, but to remove an evil man"
You obviously spent too much time watching American films. The real world is more nuanced than your rather childish view of goodies and baddies.
And only a few years ago we were sending terrorist suspects to Syria for their expert interrogating.
Fascinating how the crimes of some regimes become acceptable when they're on our side.
Care to direct your venom elsewhere? Or otherwise, learn to read.
He thinks Tom and Jerry cartoons are breaking news.
Thinks it is dreadful that his daughter only has a 50k pa allowance, how can she possibly survive on that.
Wodgers world.
Markit Economics @MarkitEconomics
Final UK Manu #PMI hits two-and-a-half year high of 57.2 in August, up from July’s rev. 54.8 (prev. 54.6) pic.twitter.com/2XZ8xTgJIJ
Dinna fash yersel' though, with his usual immaculate timing, Gordon's on the job.
http://tinyurl.com/nnapff9
Many of its enduring ideas, contrary to perceptions today, were forged in the heartland of the industrial north of England. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23898395?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcnews
Separately from that, you envisage a war-ending intervention that is on no-one else's radar.
I asked what kind of car it was........
On topic, I like EdmundinTokyo's bet on Douglas Alexander. 4/1 seems very fair.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/france-syria-poll_n_3847660.html
What is the mechanism for removing this berk ?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2013/09/01/01002-20130901QCMWWW00094-intervention-en-syrie-faut-il-un-vote-du-parlement-francais.php
I think Kerry might be about to find out his oldest ally defines ally as someone who helps France rather than the other way round.
"Wodgers world."
No one was more pleased than me when you came out of rehab and added your wit and wisdom to our little community here. I just think you're doing too much too quickly. Remember the doctors parting words 'Not even at communion'
"New polling, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Devo Plus group, has shown the dramatic effect which Devo Plus could have on the result of the independence referendum."
http://www.devoplus.com
Apologies for the length, but it is impossible to be brief on such complex issues, and indeed it is not comprehensive:
The risks of going in:
*) We support the wrong side, if there is a 'wrong' or 'right' side any more.
*) We create long-term hatred towards us and risk retribution attacks against us directly. However, inaction could also cause hatred towards us: "why aren't you helping?"
*) We end up killing civilians instead of aiding them.
*) We risk our armed forces.
*) We support and arm groups that are positively hostile towards us.
*) We prolong the conflict (although it's already very prolonged).
The risks of staying out:
*) Other regimes know they can use chemical weapons indiscriminately, both internally and externally.
*) We risk more chemical and conventional attacks inside Syria, by all sides.
*) We risk groups inside Syria using weapons against the camps intra- and extra-Syria, especially Turkey and Jordan. Many insurgents and supplies for the rebels are believed to be coming through those camps.
*) The conflict develops into a stalemate, continues for longer and kills more non-combatants.
*) Chemical weapons become more of a direct threat against us.
*) Regimes do more research into weapons of mass destruction.
*) Our campaign against North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons becomes much harder, as they will see our threats as toothless.
Aims:
Currently I think that *if* we go in militarily, then it has to be limited to the chemical weapons and units operating them. The aim should be not to directly aid either help Assad or the rebels, but to help the non-combatants who are at risk from these hideous weapons.
Trying to win the civil war for one side or the other is a no-no, and would acerbate risks. The aim therefore has to be to to make the penalties for using chemical weapons (by either side) greater than the tactical advantages of using them.
As part of this, if we target Assad for chemical weapons use, the rebels need to know that there will be penalties if they used them. That does not necessarily have to be military force. As we provide them with various forms of aid, then we can tell them that any use of chemical weapons will stop that aid. We should also make other countries helping them make the same threat.
Long-term strategy:
Action should be backed up with long-term strategy, and this can only be for a negotiated settlement. Ideally any military or diplomatic action would put maximum pressure on all the sides to come to the negotiating table. This is obviously easier said than done.
If we do not go in militarily, pressure has to be put on neighbouring countries not to interfere too strongly, and any interference only being to help non-combatants (e.g. Turkey's aid to refugees). That includes our own country, as well as the US, Russia, Qatar and others. If there is no military action, then we need to concede that we can do nothing militarily. Therefore military aid to *all* sides needs to stop., and a total arms embargo implemented. Sadly, that course of action has its own risks and consequences.
I remember some on here criticising Cameron robustly for the Libyan intervention. I remember some on here saying that Cameron was taking the wrong stance last year when he wanted to intervene in Syria. Perhaps we would be in a better situation now if he had had his way. It is certainly hard to imagine the situation in Syria being much worse.
The UN:
The UN and the UN Security Council is toothless as long as Russia vetoes international action against Syria in the UNSC. However they could be taking a different tack (perhaps they're already doing this): investigations to ensure that any side who used chemical weapons during this conflict, whether government or rebel, is rigorously prosecuted for their use. The UN should let it be known that leaders will be held personally responsible for their use. Caroline Lucas is right about this, and the International Criminal Court should have more teeth in all directions. It would be good if the US/UK/France took this line as well.
That could be extended to the Assad regime, even if the weapons were used by rebels. If it can be proved that rebel use of weapons was from governmental stocks, then the Assad government should be held responsible for not keeping them safe.It could also be extended to other countries who have sent in fighters, for instance Lebanon, if it is discovered that their troops have used such weapons.
This fits in with making the risks of using chemical weapons greater than the tactical advantages gained from their use. However such threats - by their very nature long-term - might not have much of a deterrent effect when the leader and the state itself is facing an existential crisis.
It is one of these situations where Cameron, Obama and Hollande do not face a 'right' answer, especially when their actions will be viewed by historians in a few decades. I do not envy them this decision.