politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON and UKIP voters are becoming more supportive of missile

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON and UKIP voters are becoming more supportive of missile attacks on Syria – LAB and LD ones more hostile

As can be seen the net support/oppose numbers have overall moved more towards the latter. But both CON and UKIP voters have become more supportive of the proposal. The latter is in a manner that appears at odds with Farage’s high profile anti-position.

Read the full story here

DavidL

I suspect that the tory position has been influenced by irritation with those who failed to support the PM but the overall movement is clear and Cameron is now getting the best of both worlds.

RichardNabavi

Events, dear boy, will decide how this plays out. Unless there's some major development (either no action happening and Assad thereby emboldened to murder more children, or conversely action leading to disagreeable consequences, or successful action leading to a diminution of the risks), I expect the issue will not have great salience amongst voters. However, party activists, especially LibDems, may make more of it.

carl

Certainly explains the lack of impact on VI.

The Tory vote, down in the low 30s, is pretty core and partisan at the moment, and would side with their party on pretty much anything.

Ditto the current Lib Dem vote.

And the issue has merely further solidified the 2010 Lib-Lab coalition that Labour currently enjoy.

Which begs the question, will anything move voters from where they currently are?

Andy_JS

"Bashar Al-Assad launched the chemical attack which killed hundreds of people because he 'lost his nerve' in a moment of panic and worried that Damascus would fall to rebel troops, according to new intelligence.
In a telephone call which was tapped by German spy chiefs, a senior Hezbollah commander told the Iranian embassy in Lebanon that Syria's president intended to tilt the balance of power towards the regime in the battle for control of the country's capital."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411254/Syria-crisis-claims-Assad-launched-chemical-attack-scared-rebels-Damascus.html

taffys

Curious that UKIP supporters are becoming more interventionist, even as their party completely rules out intervention.

Scrapheap_as_was

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

Substitute Ed and you have: Ed is too cowardly to have a case, voting against a second vote tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

See even a pb-tory can do that sort of humour.

carl

Andy_JS said:

"Bashar Al-Assad launched the chemical attack which killed hundreds of people because he 'lost his nerve' in a moment of panic and worried that Damascus would fall to rebel troops, according to new intelligence.
In a telephone call which was tapped by German spy chiefs, a senior Hezbollah commander told the Iranian embassy in Lebanon that Syria's president intended to tilt the balance of power towards the regime in the battle for control of the country's capital."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411254/Syria-crisis-claims-Assad-launched-chemical-attack-scared-rebels-Damascus.html

The Leader of The Free World could have demanded a better breakfast than that.

What on earth is it? A biscuit, rollmop and some sauce? Disgrace.

RichardNabavi

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Garbage. What it tells you is that he respects parliament, and sticks to his word. He promised as long ago as 2006 that he would seek the consent of parliament in this kind of situation. In this case, he soberly outlined his case in a well-respected speech, but parliament didn't give that consent, and he respects that. Isabel Hardman nails it completely:

Labour does risk looking like a baby who can’t decide whether he wants milk, crying at one point and refusing at another, by having opposed last week’s motion and now dropping big hints that it wants another vote. The case that Murphy, Bradshaw and other colleagues make on Parliament being rushed into making a decision on intervention would have more currency if Parliament had actually voted on intervention last week. It didn’t: the motion from the government – rewritten as a result of Labour demands - said there was a ‘sound legal basis for taking action’, and that ‘before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place’.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/philip-hammond-no-2nd-syria-vote-unless-the-circumstances-change-very-significantly/

Life_ina_market_town

As I've said before, the United Kingdom may have reached this position via a discreditable route, but it appears that we have at last realised that it is not open to us to intervene in the internal affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic. That is a welcome development.

carl

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

SouthamObserver

Yes, it has become completely partisan. It won't change votes, but it may well cement them.

Next

carl said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

And if he'd pushed ahead for a second vote anyway, you would have criticised that.

CarlottaVance

carl said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

And sees no reason for helping Ed out of the considerable hole he has dug for himself......

taffys

He's scared of the consequences.

David Cameron asked parliament to approve the principle of intervention in Syria. Not intervention. The principle of it. He was defeated.

Now, you, the party that defeated him, is asking him to ask parliament again.

So to get this straight, you're asking for a re-run of a vote you won, presumably so you can lose.

Incredible, really.

DavidL

FPT

Looking at the Lobbying bill the "transparancy" stuff in part 1 seems pretty pointless. At best it might change some of the structures of those involved in the lobbying so they can go into the large loopholes.

Part 2 deals with a genuine mischief but I agree with Life_in_a_market_town that the tory way of dealing with this would be deregulation rather than somewhat officious and contentious additional regulation which seems to have an alarming number of grey areas in it. I wonder if the Lib Dems are scared of a free for all.

Part 3 seems designed to address some aspects of the mischief acknowledged by the GMB today in that we suddenly switch from 420K members signed up for Labour to 50K. At present, however, it does this in an extremely bureaucratic way. It is a bit of a give away when Lansley states in his piece in the Telegraph that he "invited amendments from Labour" on this. It really does not seem worth the candle at the moment.

Lansley's last effort at major legislation probably got little attention beyond the bubble but caused the Coalition a lot of grief within it. In my opinion this bill should be stripped down to deal with the one point of substance or cancelled. The last thing the Coalition needs is another bill staggering through Parliament under the weight of its own amendments.

Life_ina_market_town

tim said:

He didnt consult Parliament before attacking Libya, he recalled it against Hagues advice as an Osborne inspired Master Strategy.

Then again, action in Libya was manifestly lawful.

carl

CarlottaVance said:

carl said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

And sees no reason for helping Ed out of the considerable hole he has dug for himself......

Exactly. So Cameron and the Tories are playing party politics with an issue of war and peace.

CarlottaVance

carl said:

CarlottaVance said:

carl said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

And sees no reason for helping Ed out of the considerable hole he has dug for himself......

Exactly. So Cameron and the Tories are playing party politics with an issue of war and peace.

You mean, like Labour did?

taffys

''Cameron and the Tories are playing party politics with an issue of war and peace. ''

Cameron lost the vote, and he lost to your party.

Now, you want him to put the vote to the parliament again, so that......he can win???

And you can lose????

Totally baffling.

NickPalmer

It's certainly noticeable that Tories here are trying to make partisan hay with it, but jus as I didn't think Labour's bounce after the vote would last don't think the reverse will either. The public have moved on unless one party insists on making it central again, which IMO would be unwise for whoever did it.

This year's party conferences look set to be more important than usual - with both Cameron and Miliband in the polling doldrums, there's a significant potential reward to whoever proves to exceed expectations. Not sure that anyone is paying enough attention to Clegg for it to matter so much to him.

carl

CarlottaVance said:

carl said:

CarlottaVance said:

carl said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

And sees no reason for helping Ed out of the considerable hole he has dug for himself......

Exactly. So Cameron and the Tories are playing party politics with an issue of war and peace.

You mean, like Labour did?

As I said at the time, both leaders did what they thought was right.

But the vote was such a bombshell that both have retreated to party political bunkers. Every time a Tory pops up pressing home their narrative that Labour played politics, they are clearly - er - playing politics.

And if the issue is that important, then why rule anything out.

Alanbrooke

RichardNabavi said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Garbage. What it tells you is that he respects parliament, and sticks to his word. He promised as long ago as 2006 that he would seek the consent of parliament in this kind of situation. In this case, he soberly outlined his case in a well-respected speech, but parliament didn't give that consent, and he respects that. Isabel Hardman nails it completely:

Labour does risk looking like a baby who can’t decide whether he wants milk, crying at one point and refusing at another, by having opposed last week’s motion and now dropping big hints that it wants another vote. The case that Murphy, Bradshaw and other colleagues make on Parliament being rushed into making a decision on intervention would have more currency if Parliament had actually voted on intervention last week. It didn’t: the motion from the government – rewritten as a result of Labour demands - said there was a ‘sound legal basis for taking action’, and that ‘before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place’.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/philip-hammond-no-2nd-syria-vote-unless-the-circumstances-change-very-significantly/

Let's see. Ed knifed his brother, supported HoL reform until he didn't, welched on Syria etc.

I'd say Crosby should drop the weak weak weak mantra and campaign on nobody can trust Ed Miliband - not even his brother.

Alanbrooke

NickPalmer said:

It's certainly noticeable that Tories here are trying to make partisan hay with it, but jus as I didn't think Labour's bounce after the vote would last don't think the reverse will either. The public have moved on unless one party insists on making it central again, which IMO would be unwise for whoever did it.

This year's party conferences look set to be more important than usual - with both Cameron and Miliband in the polling doldrums, there's a significant potential reward to whoever proves to exceed expectations. Not sure that anyone is paying enough attention to Clegg for it to matter so much to him.

It's certainly noticeable that Tories here are trying to make partisan hay with it

Irony overload Nick. What on earth was Miliband's vote stunt about if not party politics ? And don't say policy or principles since the bloke has none.

Next

tim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

tim said:

He didnt consult Parliament before attacking Libya, he recalled it against Hagues advice as an Osborne inspired Master Strategy.

Then again, action in Libya was manifestly lawful.

Dave was clear last week that action in Syria would be lawful.
Unfortunately he went to soon and hadn't got the evidence to back up his case.
Another victory for the Master Strategist, if Cameron had listened to Hague rather than the Boy then he wouldn't have rushed a parliamentary recall through.

But chum before country, and chum before Syria, no matter how much bleating we get from him now.

"Unfortunately he went to soon and hadn't got the evidence to back up his case."

The evidence was provided (privately) to Miliband... and he agreed to taking action.

Then he welched.

JohnO

NickPalmer said:

This year's party conferences look set to be more important than usual - with both Cameron and Miliband in the polling doldrums, there's a significant potential reward to whoever proves to exceed expectations. Not sure that anyone is paying enough attention to Clegg for it to matter so much to him.

Nice one Nick, thought you'd get that one past us, did you?

Tories perhaps 4-7% behind in the polls with 18 months or so to go to the election with news on the economy just going to get better and better. And Dave polling 10 points ahead of Ed in the latest (gold standard) MORI Leaders' ratings. So that's the doldrums is it? If you say so....9titters quietly)

As for Ed. Well, actually you do have a point there.

Alanbrooke

carl said:

CarlottaVance said:

carl said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Cameron is too cowardly to press his case, taking a second vote of the table tells you what sort of a man he is, prepared to pose but too scared to act for fear of his job

Jeez - give it a break. Your comedy routine today is a little stale now.

It's true though.

Cameron's decision to completely rule out action or a second vote is down to purely political considerations. He's scared of the consequences.

And sees no reason for helping Ed out of the considerable hole he has dug for himself......

Exactly. So Cameron and the Tories are playing party politics with an issue of war and peace.

last time I looked the opposition get the chance to table motions too. What's stooping miliband from tabling a new vote ? Oh yeah, he'd look the irresolute pillock he is.

Life_ina_market_town

tim said:

Dave was clear last week that action in Syria would be lawful.

No doubt he was, but if we unquestionably accepted the government's word on what was lawful, there would be no need for any courts. "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." (R.M. Nixon)

RichardNabavi

Alanbrooke said:

Let's see. Ed knifed his brother, supported HoL reform until he didn't, welched on Syria etc.

I'd say Crosby should drop the weak weak weak mantra and campaign on nobody can trust Ed Miliband - not even his brother.

Actually the lack of trustworthiness seems to be a form of weakness. It looks like he agreed with the cross-party consensus after Cameron had addressed all the Labour concerns, but then got forced into welching on it by the big boys, and now of course regrets that having previously celebrated it. Certainly that explanation fits the facts better than anything else.

DavidL

Although the changes are interesting the fact remains even the tory supporters oppose any review of this decision by a proportion that would keep even No campaigners in Scotland quite content.

Given that it seems inconceivable that Cameron would want to try again.

We have done this to death now but who is really convinced that firing missiles into Syria is going to make things better? Who really believes that there is a credible case for the proposal being lawful in International law? Who really believes that we as the good guys have such moral superiority that we are entitled to ignore the UNSC?

Either the international community as a whole decides to proceed with some form of action here given the overwhelming evidence of who is responsible for the illegal use of chemical weapons or it does not. If it does not we may regret that but we have no right to override it.

If the UK get agreement from the UNSC authorising military action there would be a good basis for revisiting this. Anything short of that is just posturing.

Alanbrooke

RichardNabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Let's see. Ed knifed his brother, supported HoL reform until he didn't, welched on Syria etc.

I'd say Crosby should drop the weak weak weak mantra and campaign on nobody can trust Ed Miliband - not even his brother.

Actually the lack of trustworthiness seems to be a form of weakness. It looks like he agreed with the cross-party consensus after Cameron had addressed all the Labour concerns, but then got forced into welching on it by the big boys, and now of course regrets it having previously celebrated it. Certainly that explanation fits the facts better than anything else.

I'd just accent the white hair bit and run with Ed the skunk leaves a bad smell behind him.

TGOHF

O/T

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100233980/the-campaign-to-save-royal-mail-may-need-saving-from-itself/

"Sending MPs bogus postcards, claiming to be from local people, will only upset local people. At the same time, it devalues the campaign.

It also shows extraordinary poor judgment about how to campaign in the internet era, where authenticity is everything – and where MPs sent bogus postcards can highlight the fact on blogs like this."

SouthamObserver

tim said:

@Next.

Cameron is PM, he has a majority.
And he couldn't get his own side on board because he ballsed up the part recall of Parliament.
There's no point whining like he did when similar incompetence and poor party management cost him the boundary changes.

There's plenty of point, isn't there? "Look a squirrel" is often a very effective tactic in politics. All the things that could have happened to Cameron and Co after losing such an important vote have been avoided. It's not whining, it's deliberate and diversionary. And another sign that the Tories are upping their game. However, as Mike indicates in his thread header, and the polls suggest, what it will do is polarise voters; something which, in the end, may not help the Tories.

JohnO

@tim - hold on a minute, grasshopper: if we're thinking purely in partisan terms (which you always do, sod the natiuonal interest), then the master strategist is a genius (not even near perfect). He's got Dave as the honourable courageous leader who argued his case passionately but was cynically foiled by a too-clever-by-half Opposition Leader, who is now squirming around to re-gain even a vestige of credibility. While the PM has landed on the same side as public opinion.

And his personal ratings have increased slightly and no discernible impact on VI.

What's more, he's making a pretty good fist of the economy (unlile others I could mention).

Hats off to Boy George who will be an admirable Foreign Secretary (and warmly welcomed by Prez O and then Clinton) in the re-elected Dave-led government.

Scott_P

It's fun watching the PB Kinnocks claiming that Ed's spectacular miscalculation on Thursday is somehow a defeat for Dave.

Ed is screwed. and he know it. Hence the procession of miserable Shadow cabinet ministers wringing their hands and weeping "when we voted against action, we didn't mean it"

Tragic.

Plato

TGOHF said:

O/T

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100233980/the-campaign-to-save-royal-mail-may-need-saving-from-itself/

"Sending MPs bogus postcards, claiming to be from local people, will only upset local people. At the same time, it devalues the campaign.

It also shows extraordinary poor judgment about how to campaign in the internet era, where authenticity is everything – and where MPs sent bogus postcards can highlight the fact on blogs like this."

I saw Douglas' tweets earlier and couldn't quite grasp what was going on - then I saw the scale of it and union collusion - how stupid are these people? And Douglas is a dog with a bone at the best of times. Clearly whoever thought he wouldn't contact his own voters about it directly is remarkably stupid.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

JohnO said:

@tim - hold on a minute, grasshopper: if we're thinking purely in partisan terms (which you always do, sod the natiuonal interest), then the master strategist is a genius (not even near perfect). He's got Dave as the honourable courageous leader who argued his case passionately but was cynically foiled by a too-clever-by-half Opposition Leader, who is now squirming around to re-gain even a vestige of credibility. While the PM has landed on the same side as public opinion.

And his personal ratings have increased slightly and no discernible impact on VI.

What's more, he's making a pretty good fist of the economy (unlile others I could mention).

Hats off to Boy George who will be an admirable Foreign Secretary (and warmly welcomed by Prez O and then Clinton) in the re-elected Dave-led government.

Good job Blair had more of a spine in the Balkans eh?

I think you'll find Blair is not remembered for the Balkans......

TGOHF

Scott_P said:

It's fun watching the PB Kinnocks claiming that Ed's spectacular miscalculation on Thursday is somehow a defeat for Dave.

Ed is screwed. and he know it. Hence the procession of miserable Shadow cabinet ministers wringing their hands and weeping "when we voted against action, we didn't mean it"

Tragic.

When is the shad cabinet reshuffle ? (no laughing now...)

Will any GMB friendly MPs be promoted ?

RichardNabavi

@tim - Well, if the criticism is the minor one that Dave's not wonderful at party management, yes, sure. In the overall scheme of things, though, that's pretty minor, and fortuitously in this case it saved him from Labour's trap - as I've pointed out before, from a party-political point of view the worst of all worlds would have been a narrow victory, making him look weak, still allowing Assad and other thugs to claim parliament wasn't really behind action, and leaving Labour able to claim credit if it worked and avoid blame if it didn't.

CarlottaVance

Scott_P said:

Ed is screwed. and he know it.

He certainly didn't look or sound like a LotO who had defeated the PM in a major Foreign policy vote the previous week at PMQs......

Scott_P

TGOHF said:

When is the shad cabinet reshuffle ? (no laughing now...)

Whenever Len phones.

TGOHF said:

Will any GMB friendly MPs be promoted ?

ROFL

JohnO

@tim - Let me tell you, sunshine, I have no truck with plastic Generals like you whose objective is full scale military intervention, no doubt based on the same, squalid deceptions that your hero Blair and Campbell perpetrated in 2003. How right was Cameron in saying that your crowd poisened the well 10 years later.

Scott_P

CarlottaVance said:

He certainly didn't look or sound like a LotO who had defeated the PM in a major Foreign policy vote the previous week at PMQs......

I didn't see many of his backbenchers cheering today...

Roger

Just heard the top ten gaffes of the Australian election. If any politician could better Tony Abbott's "I can't be the suppository of all wisdom" they'd get my vote

taffys

Unless I'm very much mistaken Tim is annoyed with David Cameron for losing a vote the party he supports won.

?????

Would you have preferred to have lost????

Sunil_Prasannan

RichardNabavi said:

Events, dear boy

Except that MacMillan likely never said that!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan

Disputed:
Events, dear boy, events.
Response to a journalist when asked what is most likely to blow governments off course.
The quote is also given as "Events, my dear boy, events", with the word "my", but it may never have been uttered at all.
Knowles, Elizabeth M. (2006). What they didn't say: a book of misquotations. Oxford University Press. pp. vi, 33.

CarlottaVance

"Putin tells AP he was surprised by UK break w/ allies on Syria, thought West conformed like "Communst Party congresses of the Soviet Union"

http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/syria?smid=tw-nytimes

richardDodd

Bit rich tim talking about cowardice..he hides in his bunker slinging insults at the PM and his wife, hides behind an avatar and has a problem working out who he is.. The Cheshire Farmer with large estates or the Off Licence worker in Liverpool or the full time Labour troll ..perhaps when he decides who he is he might just get more traction...

roserees64

On a previous thread Richard Nabavi equated the sensible state provision of primary places with Stalinist policy. He also made a comparison between BT's one time monopoly and the provision of State education.
Both Education and Health policies should be beyond party politics and certainly not the subject of such inappropriate and misguided comments.

Scott_P

taffys said:

Would you have preferred to have lost????

Yes.

Ed really, really, really wanted the vote to pass. Which is why he, err, voted against it.

Twat.

Sunil_Prasannan

I see the PB Warmongers are still creaming their pants at the prospect of adding to the death and destruction in Syria!

CarlottaVance

tim said:

JohnO said:

@tim - Let me tell you, sunshine, I have no truck with plastic Generals like you whose objective is full scale military intervention, no doubt based on the same, squalid deceptions that your hero Blair and Campbell perpetrated in 2003. How right was Cameron in saying that your crowd poisened the well 10 years later.

Then tell your leader to stop arguing for regime change

Link?

TGOHF

roserees64 said:

On a previous thread Richard Nabavi equated the sensible state provision of primary places with Stalinist policy. He also made a comparison between BT's one time monopoly and the provision of State education.
Both Education and Health policies should be beyond party politics and certainly not the subject of such inappropriate and misguided comments.

Should unpleasant critiquing of Education and Health be covered by blasphemy laws ?

CopperSulphate

roserees64 said:

On a previous thread Richard Nabavi equated the sensible state provision of primary places with Stalinist policy. He also made a comparison between BT's one time monopoly and the provision of State education.
Both Education and Health policies should be beyond party politics and certainly not the subject of such inappropriate and misguided comments.

State education sucks. A load of kids come out of school after 11 years and still can't read or write.

90% in the classroom don't want to be there and that includes the teachers.

richardDodd

Carlotta.. Link? .. dont hold your breath..

Roger

@Calotta

"He certainly didn't look or sound like a LotO who had defeated the PM in a major Foreign policy vote the previous week at PMQs......"

He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not having the courage of his convictions. Can't Labour persuade Charlie Kennedy come out of reirement and be persuaded to put the bottles away and lead Labour.

Cameron is there for the taking. Watching Labour miss so many open goals is becoming depressing

Plato

LOL

TGOHF said:

roserees64 said:

On a previous thread Richard Nabavi equated the sensible state provision of primary places with Stalinist policy. He also made a comparison between BT's one time monopoly and the provision of State education.
Both Education and Health policies should be beyond party politics and certainly not the subject of such inappropriate and misguided comments.

Should unpleasant critiquing of Education and Health be covered by blasphemy laws ?

RichardNabavi

@roserees64 - Point of order. I didn't equate the sensible state provision of primary places or indeed anything else, with Stalinist policy, but with Soviet central planning.

john_zims

@RichardNabavi

'Actually the lack of trustworthiness seems to be a form of weakness. It looks like he agreed with the cross-party consensus after Cameron had addressed all the Labour concerns,'

Labour-uncut agrees with you.

'But it seems that – unless something happens which truly threatens the party and its leadership, like the battle with Unite – in that last moment when he is finally forced to jump one way or the other, one cannot help but feel the instinct is always to rabbit-run to the left.

And that in itself might be understandable to many, were it not for the way that the jump was made in this case. A last-minute change of mind, after Cameron’s meek acceptance of all Labour’s conditions, led to a breakdown of trust which seems to have torpedoed the idea of intervention altogether, quite probably permanently.'

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/09/04/syria-the-hangover

JohnO

@tim - I guess you're drowning your sorrows with Richard Perle, Ken Edelman, John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz. Is Dick Cheney your current house-guest in deepest Merseyside?

richardDodd

woger..take a deep breath.. lots of depression on its way..

Alanbrooke

Roger said:

Just heard the top ten gaffes of the Australian election. If any politician could better Tony Abbott's "I can't be the suppository of all wisdom" they'd get my vote

Classic ! Any idea of the other 9 ?

CarlottaVance

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

JohnO said:

@tim - Let me tell you, sunshine, I have no truck with plastic Generals like you whose objective is full scale military intervention, no doubt based on the same, squalid deceptions that your hero Blair and Campbell perpetrated in 2003. How right was Cameron in saying that your crowd poisened the well 10 years later.

Then tell your leader to stop arguing for regime change

Link?

Todays PMQs

@MartynExpress: David Cameron demands regime change in Syria. Assad and his cronies are "totally illegitimate", he says. #PMQs #Syria

Don't be shy - provide the quote on 'regime change' from Hansard:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/107/#c107

RobC

Roger said:

@Calotta

"He certainly didn't look or sound like a LotO who had defeated the PM in a major Foreign policy vote the previous week at PMQs......"

He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not having the courage of his convictions. Can't Labour persuade Charlie Kennedy come out of reirement and be persuaded to put the bottles away and lead Labour.

Cameron is there for the taking. Watching Labour miss so many open goals is becoming depressing

Yes where is David Miliband when you want him.

As for Charlie leading Labour are you serious lol? We ditched him for a reason.

taffys

''He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by not having the courage of his convictions.''

That sounds like a criticism. You sound disappointed. YOU WON THE VOTE. Why do you feel the need to blame someone for a victory?

DavidL

tim said:

@DavidL

David Cameron is convinced that firing a few missiles would achieve something.
Because he hasn't got the balls to argue for regime change and a military strategy to achieve it.

Kosovo took 78 days bombing,Cameron wants the photo op without the risk, and he has done nothing for two years then suddenly half recalls parliament

According to the BBC this morning the UK is the second largest donor of aid to they Syrian refugees and is helping to house and feed over 900,000 of them. .

The UK government also played a major part in overturning the EU restrictions on arming the rebels. Whether actually arming them is a good idea or not is another question.

The UK government has worked tirelessly to get an international peace conference going. It still is. This is the right way forward.

Your argument that all he has done is have his wife do a photo op in a tent shows astonishing ignorance and cynicism. But let's chuck a few bombs eh? How could that go wrong?

CarlottaVance

Cameron's final reply to Miliband:

"Last week the House of Commons voted clearly, and I have said that I respect the outcome of that vote and will not be bringing back plans for British participation in military action. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must bring to bear everything we have in our power—our diplomatic networks, our influence with other countries and our membership of all the key bodies such as the G8, the G20, the UN, the EU and NATO. My only regret from last week is that I do not think it was necessary to divide the House on a vote that could have led to a vote, but he took the decision that it was."

taffys

As I say you're admitting all Daves posturing is empty, all the talk of removing Assad and protecting the Syrian people, arming the rebels etc is all empty, he hasn't the bottle.

We'll never know because Miliband won the vote.

And you should be pleased because your man got his way. As did your party.

I fail to see why labour MPs are so upset.

dr_spyn

Iosif Vissarionovich must be turning in his grave.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-23931065

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

So, a Pyrrhic victory for Miliband then?

Except that Pyrrhus was actually very talented and very loyal to his friends, of course. I can recommend Jeff Champion's biography of the man.

http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/review-pyrrhus-of-epirus-by-jeff.html

Alanbrooke

Just looking at Ed on BBC 6 pm news. It strikes you he knifed his brother to get the top job and now he's knifing the people who put him there. At some point he's going to find all the knives are out for him, and I thought Cameron was bad at party managment.

Sunil_Prasannan

Alanbrooke said:

Just looking at Ed on BBC 6 pm news. It strikes you he knifed his brother to get the top job and now he's knifing the people who put him there. At some point he's going to find all the knives are out for him, and I thought Cameron was bad at party managment.

And yet Cameron lost the vote last week?

CopperSulphate

taffys said:

As I say you're admitting all Daves posturing is empty, all the talk of removing Assad and protecting the Syrian people, arming the rebels etc is all empty, he hasn't the bottle.

We'll never know because Miliband won the vote.

And you should be pleased because your man got his way. As did your party.

I fail to see why labour MPs are so upset.

Because they voted against purely for political gain expecting to lose, but oh dear they won and he now looks like an idiot frantically scambling about pleading with Iran to come to the rescue. What a shame.

CopperSulphate

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cameron's final reply to Miliband:

"Last week the House of Commons voted clearly, and I have said that I respect the outcome of that vote and will not be bringing back plans for British participation in military action. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must bring to bear everything we have in our power—our diplomatic networks, our influence with other countries and our membership of all the key bodies such as the G8, the G20, the UN, the EU and NATO. My only regret from last week is that I do not think it was necessary to divide the House on a vote that could have led to a vote, but he took the decision that it was."

So why did he put a vote down in the first place, an Osborne stunt.
If he'd listened to Hague instead none of this would've happened and his incompetent party management wouldve not mattered so much this week

It's called democracy I believe.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

CarlottaVance said:

Cameron's final reply to Miliband:

"Last week the House of Commons voted clearly, and I have said that I respect the outcome of that vote and will not be bringing back plans for British participation in military action. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must bring to bear everything we have in our power—our diplomatic networks, our influence with other countries and our membership of all the key bodies such as the G8, the G20, the UN, the EU and NATO. My only regret from last week is that I do not think it was necessary to divide the House on a vote that could have led to a vote, but he took the decision that it was."

So why did he put a vote down in the first place, an Osborne stunt.
If he'd listened to Hague instead none of this would've happened and his incompetent party management wouldve not mattered so much this week

Found the Cameron demand for "regime change" yet?

JohnO

tim said:

JohnO said:

@tim - I guess you're drowning your sorrows with Richard Perle, Ken Edelman, John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz. Is Dick Cheney your current house-guest in deepest Merseyside?

As I say you're admitting all Daves posturing is empty, all the talk of removing Assad and protecting the Syrian people, arming the rebels etc is all empty, he hasn't the bottle.

I'm admitting no such thing. Get yourself a leader who is, well, a leader and perhaps a conversation may be worth having. And take a good look at yourself for the lies, deceit and scum-spin of 2003.

Scott_P

tim said:

‘lessons will be learned’ from the Syria vote

Don't trust Ed Miliband. Ever.

Alanbrooke

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alanbrooke said:

Just looking at Ed on BBC 6 pm news. It strikes you he knifed his brother to get the top job and now he's knifing the people who put him there. At some point he's going to find all the knives are out for him, and I thought Cameron was bad at party managment.

And yet Cameron lost the vote last week?

Of course he did and that's why I said he was crap a party management there are lots of other examples. But Ed is now catching Dave up with a series of gaffs which are going to leave him alone and friendless and with no-one ready to stick their neck out for him. We had a taste of it over the summer.

So it seems that Oxford PPEs don't understand economics and aren't very good at politics. Philosophy your turn will come.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

@JGForsyth: Hague has just told the ‘22 that ‘lessons will be learned’ from the Syria vote

Including, "how far you can trust Ed Miliband" no doubt....

Scott_P

CarlottaVance said:

Including, "how far you can trust Ed Miliband" no doubt....

It's interesting that one of the people looking to capitalise on Ed's cockup is his brother...

RichardNabavi

@tim - I admire your synchronised spinning, keeping all those contradictory plates in the air spinning in opposite directions is quite a feat.

The new one's particularly good. Compare and contrast:

tim: So why did he put a vote down in the first place, an Osborne stunt. If he'd listened to Hague instead none of this would've happened and He didnt need to take the option of a vote once the facts came out off the table

The facts?

More than 60 MPs have now signed Labour MP Graham Allen's Early Day Motion demanding "a full debate before any British commitment to military action in Syria". ... Interviewed on the Today programme this morning, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander raised the stakes by arguing that there "should be a vote" after the government has set out its case for intervention. Asked whether action could still be taken if MPs refused to vote in favour, he replied: "I don't think it [the government] would have a mandate in Parliament, I can't state it more clearly than that."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/douglas-alexander-warns-cameron-vote-must-be-held-syria-and-labour-could-oppose-gov

So, in summary, Cameron did what he said he would do and what Labour were asking for by recalling parliament, did what Labour were asking for by holding a vote, amended his motion to meet concessions Labour asked for, was defeated because Labour still voted against the motion they'd previously said they'd support, and immediately accepted parliament's will, as Labour had said he would have to in the event of defeat - and Labour's position is 'Nothing to do with us guv, he didn't need to recall parliament, he didn't need a vote, and he didn't need to accept the result of the vote'.

Nice spin, tim.

taffys

What a shame.

Quite. It's quite preposterous that labour supporters are accusing the conservatives of playing political games.

When the vote on the principle of war came up, the only thought in the mind of Ed Miliband was how can I turn this to maximum political advantage.

I'm not blaming him for that - but it is now clear.

NickPalmer

taffys said:

And you should be pleased because your man got his way. As did your party.

I fail to see why labour MPs are so upset.

I don't think most of them are - indeed they've been criticised here for looking too pleased. Certainly I think it was the right result and I'm glad we helped bring it about.

AlastairMeeks

There is absolutely no point in a second vote on intervening in Syria unless and until a fair number of those who participated in the opposition to the motion unequivocally recant their previously-held position. Parliament has spoken.

Scott_P

tim said:

If Cameron had got his own side to turn up he wouldn't have needed to would he.

It's Dave's fault Ed is untrustworthy?

Wow.

A new low. Is Smart tim ever coming back?

Alanbrooke

Scott_P said:

tim said:

If Cameron had got his own side to turn up he wouldn't have needed to would he.

It's Dave's fault Ed is untrustworthy?

Wow.

A new low. Is Smart tim ever coming back?

I think he's smarting already.

richardDodd

Carlotta.. are you still holding your breath waiting for tims link re Regime Change.. or was it just another of his lies.

Scott_P

tim said:

Ed didn't even know the numbers on his own side.

And when he found out he realised what a colossal error he had made

That is why he is pleading for another chance. Weak, weak, weak.

taffys

Certainly I think it was the right result and I'm glad we helped bring it about.

Absolutely fair and unequivocal. Glad you're not blaming Dave for your win, as other labour posters appear to be doing!

richardDodd

NPXMP.. if you think that was the right result then it is another reasion to keep you out of Parliament..I hope the voters of Broxstowe tell you that as well..

DavidL

Seriously, if Ed learned one thing from Blair it should be the "well we are where we are", "it's time to draw a line and move on" positioning that got him out of countless holes.

Going on and on about this (6 questions out of 6 at PMQs) is just embarrassing and, well, sad. If he really keeps this up it could be fatal.

Brown was a complete and utter loon elected unanimously but even the Labour party must have limits and no one likes to be laughed at.
Perhaps he should move on to the economy, union reform or one nation Labour. Or something.

Roger

@MD

"So a Pyrrhic victory for Miliband"

Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.

Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.

Scott_P

taffys said:

Certainly I think it was the right result and I'm glad we helped bring it about.

Then why is Ed so miserable? The Shadow cabinet have been out and about saying it was not what they wanted.

SouthamObserver

Dave knew Labour were going to vote against the motion before the debate began. The Labour amendment was, according to the Tories, basically the same as the government one. So why didn't the government drop its own motion and support the Labour one? There can only be three explanations: they wanted to play politics; the two motions were actually substantively different; the government had no idea that it was about to be voted down by its own side. So which is correct.

Look, a squirrel.

Alanbrooke

Roger said:

@MD

"So a Pyrrhic victory for Miliband"

Seems to me it was anything but. The victory and consequences are very real and for all to see. Milibands stupidity was not shouting it from the rooftops and looking like he was ashamed of it. The poll shows how massively public opinion was on his side.

Cameron who got almost everything that was possible to get wrong wrong seems to have managed to slither to safety. Having said that even a cat only has nine lives and he's pretty crap by anyone's standards.

a cat only has nine lives

and a sheep has one, how long do you give ed ?

Neil

richardDodd said:

NPXMP.. if you think that was the right result then it is another reasion to keep you out of Parliament..I hope the voters of Broxstowe tell you that as well..

I bet the voters of Broxtowe agree with Nick.

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

the two motions were actually substantively different

At last, a PB Kinnock starts to understand.

richardDodd

SO .. of course.. I wonder why no-one else spotted that..so bloody clever

CarlottaVance

richardDodd said:

Carlotta.. are you still holding your breath waiting for tims link re Regime Change.. or was it just another of his lies.

tim was relying on a tweet....he may not have understood......

CopperSulphate

tim said:

@ScottP

If Cameron had got his own side to turn up he wouldn't have needed to would he.
But he wasn't even competent enough to manage that

Cameron thought Labour would back the vote as Milliband told him they would. It is hardly surprising he didn't pull out all the stops to get all his MPs to vote.

It was Milliband's last minute u-turn after being confronted by his shadow cabinet that caused him to change his mind and he only did so because he thought the vote would go through anyway.

But yeah apart from that is was all Cameron's fault and he was too busy with Sam Cam's photoshoot or something.

Neil

tim said:

Nicks position is different from mine

You're one of the few remaining neo-cons in the Labour party, tim. We should treat you delicately.