Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria

SystemSystem Posts: 6
edited August 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria

The most recent survey supports findings in a YouGov survey from April, which suggested the use of chemical weapons in Syria would make little if any difference at all to the British public’s disinclination towards greater involvement. 

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • So is this thread finally active now?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 8,443
    edited August 2013

    So is this thread finally active now?

    Yes and apologies for any technical problems earlier

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 2,147
    We would be absolutely mad to follow Obama into Syria and becomes Al-Qaeda's ally. Obama has to do something to save face after his stupid comments which he had hoped would not be tested.

    Do they know for sure that the other side didn't do it ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 2,147
    Maybe, Farage is no fool !
  • Seems so.

    I am often critical of Farage as far as his internal UKIP politics is concerned but in this case I think both morally and politically he is absolutely right. Politically UKIP can only benefit from being the only major party to oppose action (if indeed that is where the parties end up).

    More importantly on a purely moral/practical level, our intervention will not make Syria a better or safer place, nor is there much chance it will lead to a more stable, democratic, tolerant or West friendly rule in the country.

    I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 594
    So you're saying that Ed Miliband can put pressure on Dave and get rid of Diane Abbott by supporting an intervention? Sounds like a bonus to me.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 4,421
    edited August 2013
    I'm slightly surprised at the tone of Caroline Lucas' statement:

    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/08/27/caroline-lucas-a-military-response-to-assad-regime-could-lead-to-greater-harm-to-civilians/

    I expected something slightly more clear-cut. Still, she'll vote against on Friday I'm sure.

    I think the kind of anti-war Lib Dems who might give up on them over this are more likely to go back to Labour or to the Greens than all the way to UKIP.

    UKIP could benefit from Tories with doubts about it though.
  • sure i saw an article in telegraph this morning about a proposed stitch up between the russians and the saudis over oil/gas. has it disappeared now? confused
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 1,162
    Good reasons not to look like allying with the opposition. But there is not contradiction in that. I come on here, attack Labour on the economy, the Lib Dems on defence, other parts of the Conservatives on LGBT rights, and so on.

  • I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I'm wondering about Hague- he seems to be a fairly able chap who knows his history- so why would he be so in favour of intervention (long before any chemical weapons were used). any ideas?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 1,694
    4. Murdered priests and other Christians, and will undoubtedly complete the genocide of Syria's ancient Christian community, should they prevail.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255103/Syria-rebels-beheaded-Christian-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    Are the figures controlled for turnout? I know it isn't an election but usually with polls that factor makes a big difference.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 2,648
    Surbiton - The US is if anything even more opposed than us according to a recent poll, if anything it will be Obama following Cameron not the other way around
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 6,568
    edited August 2013
    Neil said:

    I'm slightly surprised at the tone of Caroline Lucas' statement:

    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/08/27/caroline-lucas-a-military-response-to-assad-regime-could-lead-to-greater-harm-to-civilians/

    I expected something slightly more clear-cut. Still, she'll vote against on Friday I'm sure.

    I think the kind of anti-war Lib Dems who might give up on them over this are more likely to go back to Labour or to the Greens than all the way to UKIP.

    UKIP could benefit from Tories with doubts about it though.

    Caroline Lucas seems to want to have her cake and eat it. She agrees with the military objectives but doubts the capability of the military to deliver them. She wants "all those responsible for war crimes [to] be referred to the International Criminal Court" but offers not feasible strategy for achieving this.

    Currently, there is no evidence that the most likely scenario – a symbolic missile strike on a key regime target – would have a deterrent effect on the Assad regime. To the contrary, it seems at least as likely that it could act as a provocation to the regime, and lead to an escalation of the conflict, and greater harm to civilians.

    Now if military commanders were to claim that the degrading of military command and control and chemical weapons delivery capabilities would constrain the Assad regime and deter its ability to escalate the conflict, would she change her view?

    By arguing military strategy she exposes her case to being undermined by expert opinion.

  • I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I'm wondering about Hague- he seems to be a fairly able chap who knows his history- so why would he be so in favour of intervention (long before any chemical weapons were used). any ideas?
    No idea to be honest.

    Contrary to what some of the more partisan posters on here seem to believe, I don't think any of the current crop of UK politicians who have achieved high office are stupid. Nor do I believe they can be unaware of the huge risks involved in such interventions. So either they think the risks are worth it or they are so ideologically committed that they cannot see any way to back out of the position they now find themselves in.

    Hague has along seems to me to be the master of political expediency. His evolving position on the EU over the last two decades seems to be a classic example of this. So I would not be surprised to find that he is one of those who is fully aware of the risks and probable outcomes but thinks that as far as the politics goes it is a winning situation for the Conservatives.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 2,608
    Neil said:

    I'm slightly surprised at the tone of Caroline Lucas' statement:

    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/08/27/caroline-lucas-a-military-response-to-assad-regime-could-lead-to-greater-harm-to-civilians/

    I expected something slightly more clear-cut. Still, she'll vote against on Friday I'm sure.

    I think the kind of anti-war Lib Dems who might give up on them over this are more likely to go back to Labour or to the Greens than all the way to UKIP.

    UKIP could benefit from Tories with doubts about it though.

    Will they let her out of jail for the vote?

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    edited August 2013
    The Assad regime must be getting worried:

    "Pro-Assad regime hackers claim to have targeted leading US media websites, shutting down the New York Times for 30 minutes.

    The Syrian Electronic Army claims to have hacked into sites belonging to Twitter and the Huffington Post, making them unstable, as well as closing down the NYT.

    The NYT attributed the meltdown to a "malicious external attack".

    When users attempted to visit www.nytimes.com, the only message that appeared was "Hacked by the SEA".

    Matt Johansen of WhiteHat Security said in a tweet that the technical aspects of the website during the attack were "pointing to Syrian Electronic Army."

    Meanwhile, Twitter spokesman Jim Prosser confirmed that site technicians are "looking into claims" it had been hacked by the SEA."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1133912/pro-assad-hackers-target-us-websites
  • NeilNeil Posts: 4,421
    edited August 2013
    AveryLP said:


    Now if military commanders were to claim that the degrading of military command and control and chemical weapons delivery capabilities would constrain the Assad regime and deter its ability to escalate the conflict, would she change her view?

    I'm guessing from the tone of her statement that she would if the military commanders could support their claim convincingly. Which is what slightly surprised me about the tone. But I expect her threshold for "convincingly" is very high. So her speech on Friday will be an interesting subplot (for me, as a member, if not many others).
  • RodCrosby said:

    4. Murdered priests and other Christians, and will undoubtedly complete the genocide of Syria's ancient Christian community, should they prevail.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255103/Syria-rebels-beheaded-Christian-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html

    Thanks, I've added that to the list.

    This has to the be most arduous PB thread I've ever written, started at 6.30pm on Tuesday and finished just before midnight, as events kept on overtaking the thread, and on that note, I'm off to bed.
  • eekeek Posts: 130
    edited August 2013
    Some bed time reading for people on why now

    https://www.nsfwcorp.com/scribble/5707/ba0a8d5002447dfafa4eef494bc9710f8eeacc98/ granted its an American magazine but its well worth the $3 a month and the editor (Paul Carr) is English.

    The curious bit is that Syria is no longer a civil war. Once you go past Assad we seem to be approaching a regional Sunni v Shia war with the proxy pieces rapidly disappearing
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 2,608

    sure i saw an article in telegraph this morning about a proposed stitch up between the russians and the saudis over oil/gas. has it disappeared now? confused

    Still on line.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
  • NeilNeil Posts: 4,421

    Neil said:

    I'm slightly surprised at the tone of Caroline Lucas' statement:

    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/08/27/caroline-lucas-a-military-response-to-assad-regime-could-lead-to-greater-harm-to-civilians/

    I expected something slightly more clear-cut. Still, she'll vote against on Friday I'm sure.

    I think the kind of anti-war Lib Dems who might give up on them over this are more likely to go back to Labour or to the Greens than all the way to UKIP.

    UKIP could benefit from Tories with doubts about it though.

    Will they let her out of jail for the vote?

    She hasnt even been charged with anything that I am aware of so far.
  • AveryLP said:

    Neil said:

    I'm slightly surprised at the tone of Caroline Lucas' statement:

    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/08/27/caroline-lucas-a-military-response-to-assad-regime-could-lead-to-greater-harm-to-civilians/

    I expected something slightly more clear-cut. Still, she'll vote against on Friday I'm sure.

    I think the kind of anti-war Lib Dems who might give up on them over this are more likely to go back to Labour or to the Greens than all the way to UKIP.

    UKIP could benefit from Tories with doubts about it though.

    Caroline Lucas seems to want to have her cake and eat it. She agrees with the military objectives but doubts the capability of the military to deliver them. She wants "all those responsible for war crimes [to] be referred to the International Criminal Court" but offers not feasible strategy for achieving this.

    Currently, there is no evidence that the most likely scenario – a symbolic missile strike on a key regime target – would have a deterrent effect on the Assad regime. To the contrary, it seems at least as likely that it could act as a provocation to the regime, and lead to an escalation of the conflict, and greater harm to civilians.

    Now if military commanders were to claim that the degrading of military command and control and chemical weapons delivery capabilities would constrain the Assad regime and deter its ability to escalate the conflict, would she change her view?

    By arguing military strategy she exposes her case to being undermined by expert opinion.
    The problem with the 'degrading military command and control' idea is that the effectiveness of that strategy falls very rapidly when the main forces you are trying to target are not conventional. Much of the fighting in southern Syria is being carried out on behalf of the Syrian government by militias from Lebanon. These are seasoned fighters who have a clear objective - one that does not require that much high level command and control from within Syria. So unless you are suggesting we should be considering bombing Beirut as well, I am not sure that the surgical strikes that seem to be mooted are really going to have that much impact.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    What worries me is if there's any truth in the rumours that Iran has sleepers in Western countries ready to cause mayhem if anything happens they object to, such as a missile strike on Syria.
  • Andy_JS said:

    The Assad regime must be getting worried:

    "Pro-Assad regime hackers claim to have targeted leading US media websites, shutting down the New York Times for 30 minutes.

    The Syrian Electronic Army claims to have hacked into sites belonging to Twitter and the Huffington Post, making them unstable, as well as closing down the NYT.

    The NYT attributed the meltdown to a "malicious external attack".

    When users attempted to visit www.nytimes.com, the only message that appeared was "Hacked by the SEA".

    Matt Johansen of WhiteHat Security said in a tweet that the technical aspects of the website during the attack were "pointing to Syrian Electronic Army."

    Meanwhile, Twitter spokesman Jim Prosser confirmed that site technicians are "looking into claims" it had been hacked by the SEA."


    http://news.sky.com/story/1133912/pro-assad-hackers-target-us-websites

    Funnily enough I was going to mention to TSE that his Huffpost link in the main thread header isn't working.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 6,568


    I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I'm wondering about Hague- he seems to be a fairly able chap who knows his history- so why would he be so in favour of intervention (long before any chemical weapons were used). any ideas?
    No idea to be honest.

    Contrary to what some of the more partisan posters on here seem to believe, I don't think any of the current crop of UK politicians who have achieved high office are stupid. Nor do I believe they can be unaware of the huge risks involved in such interventions. So either they think the risks are worth it or they are so ideologically committed that they cannot see any way to back out of the position they now find themselves in.

    Hague has along seems to me to be the master of political expediency. His evolving position on the EU over the last two decades seems to be a classic example of this. So I would not be surprised to find that he is one of those who is fully aware of the risks and probable outcomes but thinks that as far as the politics goes it is a winning situation for the Conservatives.
    Hague's goal is a political resolution to the conflict reached through the negotiation of the warring Syrian parties supported by a wide coalition of external powers.

    Getting Russia (and Iran?) to support this goal as a matter of urgency are his tactics.

    So far the threat of military intervention is purely that. If Russia delivers then there may be no use of the military. If Putin calls Obama's bluff then there will be a targetted strike of sufficient force to deter the Assad regime from continuing to use chemical weapons.

    I still think the chances are 60/40 that this particular stage of the conflict will be resolved without the US, UK and France launching a military strike. Russia getting Assad to stand down may now be the price though.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    The Twitter feed of the group which apparently shut down the New York Times website:

    https://twitter.com/Official_SEA16
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 2,648
    Also, tomorrow is the final Rudd v Abbott debate at around 9.30am UK time, 6.30pm Oz time if anyone is interested
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/election-live3a-coalition-to-release-interim-costings-in-run-u/4917068
  • AveryLP said:


    I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I'm wondering about Hague- he seems to be a fairly able chap who knows his history- so why would he be so in favour of intervention (long before any chemical weapons were used). any ideas?
    No idea to be honest.

    Contrary to what some of the more partisan posters on here seem to believe, I don't think any of the current crop of UK politicians who have achieved high office are stupid. Nor do I believe they can be unaware of the huge risks involved in such interventions. So either they think the risks are worth it or they are so ideologically committed that they cannot see any way to back out of the position they now find themselves in.

    Hague has along seems to me to be the master of political expediency. His evolving position on the EU over the last two decades seems to be a classic example of this. So I would not be surprised to find that he is one of those who is fully aware of the risks and probable outcomes but thinks that as far as the politics goes it is a winning situation for the Conservatives.
    Hague's goal is a political resolution to the conflict reached through the negotiation of the warring Syrian parties supported by a wide coalition of external powers.

    Getting Russia (and Iran?) to support this goal as a matter of urgency are his tactics.

    So far the threat of military intervention is purely that. If Russia delivers then there may be no use of the military. If Putin calls Obama's bluff then there will be a targetted strike of sufficient force to deter the Assad regime from continuing to use chemical weapons.

    I still think the chances are 60/40 that this particular stage of the conflict will be resolved without the US, UK and France launching a military strike. Russia getting Assad to stand down may now be the price though.

    That presupposes that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons in the first place.

    It also presupposes that Assad and his Lebanese allies will actually listen to Russia even if she does change her position.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 4,421
    @HYUFD

    Thanks! Though I probably shouldnt be wasting my time watching it!
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 1,694

    sure i saw an article in telegraph this morning about a proposed stitch up between the russians and the saudis over oil/gas. has it disappeared now? confused

    Putin: “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters”

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    "Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria

    Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

    As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said."


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 2,648
    edited August 2013
    Neil - Political junkies have to get their debate fix though when they can. Will try and snatch it on and off when I am able to. Night!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    Is anyone else just slightly worried this could turn into World War III in time for the 100th anniversary of June 1914?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 1,694
    edited August 2013
    and in other, perhaps unrelated news...
    http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130828178423

    Wild rumours circulating that Putin is not best pleased about the Saudi's veiled threat to the Winter Olympics....

    Saudi armed forces on high alert.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 2,278
    Andy_JS said:

    Is anyone else just slightly worried this could turn into World War III in time for the 100th anniversary of June 1914?

    No. I think if it got that far the Chinese would pull the plug on the US economy - although that might lead to a very different kind of WWIII.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 6,568
    edited August 2013

    AveryLP said:


    I...

    ...
    ...
    ...

    That presupposes that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons in the first place.

    It also presupposes that Assad and his Lebanese allies will actually listen to Russia even if she does change her position.
    There is very little doubt that the Assad regime have been using chemical weapons.

    The heavily edited and carefully attributed Wikipedia accounts that I posted on the last thread give sufficient evidence to support a 'balance of probabilities' judgement that Assad's forces have deployed chemical weapons. And Wikipedia contains only information which is in the public domain.

    I do expect the US to wait for the UN Inspectors currently in Syria to report to the UNSC before launching any strike. This was part of the agreement reached at the Northern Ireland G8 summit and pre-empting the report would let Russia off the hook.

    As to timescale it looks as thought the UN Inspectors are being pressured to report by this weekend so this probably fits the military timescale and enables a UNSC showdown over the weekend.

    If Russia falls into line with the US, UK and France by next week then it can give an ultimatum to Assad. Commit to immediate peace negotiations, surrender your chemical weapons weapons (UN supervised destruction) and agree in principle to an orderly transition of power to an interim government, subject to the Geneva negotiations; or;

    ... have your capability of continuing to rule Syria taken out by the western powers in a sustained military strike.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    Charming of the Saudis to imply Chechan terrorist attacks on the Russian Olympics next year. Just the sort of stuff that will calm nerves in this tense situation.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 1,694
    Andy_JS said:

    Is anyone else just slightly worried this could turn into World War III in time for the 100th anniversary of June 1914?

    You may bet on it, that sooner or later, WW3 will erupt over this region.

    China will then play the winner...

  • NeilNeil Posts: 4,421
    Andy_JS said:

    Charming of the Saudis to imply Chechan terrorist attacks on the Russian Olympics next year. Just the sort of stuff that will calm nerves in this tense situation.

    You know how upset the Saudis get at these anti-LGBT laws. They're just proving what good friends of Dorothy they are.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    edited August 2013
    "Diane Abbott could quit if Labour backs strikes on Syria

    David Cameron expected to have enough backing to win Thursday's emergency vote on using force.

    Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, said she planned to vote against any military action because it "could explode a proxy war into global conflict", while Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North and secretary of the backbench 1922 committee, said he was sceptical about the idea.

    John Redwood, a former Conservative cabinet minister, said many of his colleagues "need persuading that there is any military intervention which the UK could make which would make it better".

    A number of Liberal Democrats, whose party was the only one to oppose the Iraq war, are also yet to be fully convinced. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said there was a moral case for intervention but he would be prepared to oppose action if he thought it would "make a dreadful situation worse".

    Other MPs, including Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, and Tracey Crouch, a Tory MP, appealed on Twitter for their constituents to help them to make up their minds.":


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/diane-abbott-labour-syria?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 3,047
    If I was an ambitious Liberal Democrat with a ministerial job I'd resign over this.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 1,694
    edited August 2013
    Andy_JS said:

    "Diane Abbott could quit if Labour backs strikes on Syria

    David Cameron expected to have enough backing to win Thursday's emergency vote on using force.

    Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, said she planned to vote against any military action because it "could explode a proxy war into global conflict", while Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North and secretary of the backbench 1922 committee, said he was sceptical about the idea.

    John Redwood, a former Conservative cabinet minister, said many of his colleagues "need persuading that there is any military intervention which the UK could make which would make it better".

    A number of Liberal Democrats, whose party was the only one to oppose the Iraq war, are also yet to be fully convinced. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said there was a moral case for intervention but he would be prepared to oppose action if he thought it would "make a dreadful situation worse".

    Other MPs, including Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, and Tracey Crouch, a Tory MP, appealed on Twitter for their constituents to help them to make up their minds.":


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/diane-abbott-labour-syria?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Another break for UKIP? All three mainstream parties could be shattered by their agonizing over this vote...
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 6,568
    edited August 2013
    RodCrosby said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Diane Abbott could quit if Labour backs strikes on Syria

    David Cameron expected to have enough backing to win Thursday's emergency vote on using force.

    Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, said she planned to vote against any military action because it "could explode a proxy war into global conflict", while Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North and secretary of the backbench 1922 committee, said he was sceptical about the idea.

    John Redwood, a former Conservative cabinet minister, said many of his colleagues "need persuading that there is any military intervention which the UK could make which would make it better".

    A number of Liberal Democrats, whose party was the only one to oppose the Iraq war, are also yet to be fully convinced. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said there was a moral case for intervention but he would be prepared to oppose action if he thought it would "make a dreadful situation worse".

    Other MPs, including Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, and Tracey Crouch, a Tory MP, appealed on Twitter for their constituents to help them to make up their minds.":


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/diane-abbott-labour-syria?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Another break for UKIP. All three mainstream parties could be shattered by their agonizing over this vote...
    I doubt the vote will be (formally) whipped.

    So a majority for the government but with votes against from MPs in all main parties is the likely result.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 3,047
    RodCrosby said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Diane Abbott could quit if Labour backs strikes on Syria

    David Cameron expected to have enough backing to win Thursday's emergency vote on using force.

    Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, said she planned to vote against any military action because it "could explode a proxy war into global conflict", while Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North and secretary of the backbench 1922 committee, said he was sceptical about the idea.

    John Redwood, a former Conservative cabinet minister, said many of his colleagues "need persuading that there is any military intervention which the UK could make which would make it better".

    A number of Liberal Democrats, whose party was the only one to oppose the Iraq war, are also yet to be fully convinced. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said there was a moral case for intervention but he would be prepared to oppose action if he thought it would "make a dreadful situation worse".

    Other MPs, including Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, and Tracey Crouch, a Tory MP, appealed on Twitter for their constituents to help them to make up their minds.":


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/diane-abbott-labour-syria?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Another break for UKIP. All three mainstream parties could be shattered by their agonizing over this vote...
    I think Cameron will be OK. The Tories' internal arguments are wonkish and practical. They'll like the war when it happens.

    The people with the political problem are Lib and Lab.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 2,608

    If I was an ambitious Liberal Democrat with a ministerial job I'd resign over this.

    And miss out on the gravy? Non-starter.

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 417
    PB post from evening of August 22nd on the alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs:

    'Who would know until soil and body samples etc get taken? Chances are the Israelis and US do as both have very large ears on Syria and that scale of weapons strike wouldn't be random. Assad's forces keep the special weapons fairly tightly within the control of particular units who are extensively monitored in their communications. Heavy rocket launches, though the methodology of these alleged attacks may not have involved such delivery tools, are completely monitorable from the moment these things heat up in their launch stands.

    Thus there is every chance that the two nations above will already know from intelligence what went down.'

    And so it appears the US is about to lean on communications intercepts as one pillar of proof, in tandem with reported body samples.

    There was from the outset a predictable change in step on the back of this.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,638
    Caroline Lucas more in favour of war than Nigel Farage? What's going on?
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    Now's the time to pile money on the Conservatives. Why?

    I mentioned a few months ago that a Falklands type moment would do Cameron a lot of good. Syria isn't the Falklands but there is enough revulsion of Assad for Cameron to justify a strike. The current opinion polling is very encouraging for him. If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south. The tabloids this morning are massively behind Cameron: he is showing moral courage and steel.

    Where this differs from Iraq is on motive. There was a sense that the Gulf War II had a lot to do with unfinished business and, arguably, oil. Syria is less obviously a devious mission. Assad is evil with evidence of using chemical weapons. This makes intervention much more morally plausible.

    We stood by and watched the Rwandan genocide, which is a disgraceful blot on the western book. Cameron is not going to allow similar this time around.

    In time (6 to 9 months) I think we will see this action as a decisive moment when the Conservatives closed the gap on Labour and then overtook them.
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    edited August 2013
    p.s. It's also interesting to see the Far Right taking a NIMBY approach very reminiscent of the isolationists in the Republican party. It's an absolute losing position. You cannot sustain an ostrich mentality in this day and age, much as UKIP and the far Tory right might wish to. People like Redwood will have to come on board or be made to look even more stupid than they already do.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 1,554

    If I was an ambitious Liberal Democrat with a ministerial job I'd resign over this.

    Spot on Edmund.

    I wonder if party president, non-minister and hot favourite for leader's job, Tim Farron, will make a stand on this. Ideal opportunity.

    It will be interesting to see the detailed data. How are the 2010 LDs supports now splitting?

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 1,554
    pic.twitter.com/PhkKylpGvP
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 4,182
    The other point to consider is that, for good or ill, this is no longer just about Syria.

    Obama made it a red line on use of chemical weapons. There was pretty good evidence the last time they were used that Assad was responsible, but he chose to equivocate. This time the evidence is even more compelling. (By lying, Blair made it very difficult for people to trust the intelligence that the government, but no one else, sees. But sometimes you just have to.)

    If the West does not intervene now that Assad has called Obama's bluff, then the US's credibility will be fatally undermined, at least for the duration of Obama's presidency. (Thank goodness, as an aside, that Clinton is no longer part of the regime as this offers the best chance for a reset post 2016). If there is no intervention, expect North Korea, Iran and various other nasties to up their efforts to develop WMD while Obama is still in power.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 2,278

    Now's the time to pile money on the Conservatives. Why?

    I mentioned a few months ago that a Falklands type moment would do Cameron a lot of good. Syria isn't the Falklands but there is enough revulsion of Assad for Cameron to justify a strike. The current opinion polling is very encouraging for him. If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south. The tabloids this morning are massively behind Cameron: he is showing moral courage and steel.

    Where this differs from Iraq is on motive. There was a sense that the Gulf War II had a lot to do with unfinished business and, arguably, oil. Syria is less obviously a devious mission. Assad is evil with evidence of using chemical weapons. This makes intervention much more morally plausible.

    We stood by and watched the Rwandan genocide, which is a disgraceful blot on the western book. Cameron is not going to allow similar this time around.

    In time (6 to 9 months) I think we will see this action as a decisive moment when the Conservatives closed the gap on Labour and then overtook them.

    The rebels winning leads to a Rwanda.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 559
    Can't see anything on here re what happens if Cameron loses the vote.

    Is there a possibility he would have to resign?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 1,554
    edited August 2013
    @Ricardohos
    With great respect your assertion about public opinion ahead of Falklands war in 1982 is totally bollocks.

    If you want to make assertions on public opinion on PB then at least do a quick Google search to get the facts.

    You would have found that on April 14 1982 MORI found by 60% to 30% that people were satisfied with the way the government was handing the situation. That rose to 84% by June.

    See http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/49/The-Falklands-War-Panel-Survey.aspx
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 559
    Mike S - but what date did the Falklands War start?

    Task force was approved by House of Commons on 3rd April.

    So by 14th April (date of MORI poll) things were already well under way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Initial_British_response
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 4,182
    Has TSE been moonlighting? I thought he said he was going to bed!

    More than two millennia ago, the rulers of Carthage tested the resolve of a superpower by attacking the neighbouring kingdom of Numidia.

    It was an unwise decision. Rome responded by launching the Third Punic War, reducing Carthage to ashes and enslaving its people.

    The lesson was that goading a superpower can be a dangerous business.


    In all seriousness - this is a good article and makes the point I was trying to make below rather better than I did.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10266969/By-crossing-Obamas-red-line-Assad-has-forced-the-US-to-act.html
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258

    @Ricardohos
    With great respect your assertion about public opinion ahead of Falklands war in 1982 is totally bollocks.

    If you want to make assertions on public opinion on PB then at least do a quick Google search to get the facts.

    You would have found that on April 14 1982 MORI found by 60% to 30% that people were satisfied with the way the government was handing the situation. That rose to 84% by June.

    See http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/49/The-Falklands-War-Panel-Survey.aspx

    I think you're allowing your Liberal tendencies to colour your judgement again Mike, and when you do it invariably diminishes this site, sadly because when you don't it's an excellent balanced place.

    The Argentinians invaded on 2nd April and you've quoted a poll nearly 2 weeks later to try and sustain your argument. Next time you start flinging the intemperate (how very Liberal) word bollocks around get your facts right.

    The nuclear submarine Conqueror set sail from France on 4 April, whilst the two aircraft carriers Invincible and Hermes, in the company of escort vessels, left Portsmouth only one day later on 5 April. Upon its return to Southampton from a world cruise on 7 April, the ocean liner SS Canberra was requisitioned and set sail two days later with 3 Commando Brigade aboard.

    By the 12th April the Task Force was already well on its way with broadcasts from the ships on the news, and sentiment against the Argentinians, and desire for recapture mounting, whipped up by the tabloids.

    The other thing to note, which you're always careful about in national voting intention polling is how questions are phrased. This is particularly important when there's nothing to compare to. So for instance a series of questions offering six degrees of response to Syria, many heavily laden, will be unlikely to produce as strong support for action as a question weighted the other way such as 'Do you believe this country should take action against the dictator Assad following his use of chemical weapons in attack on civilians' etc. etc.

    Facts. Check.
  • TimT2TimT2 Posts: 45
    edited August 2013
    @ Yokel. Did a talking head piece two days ago for CBC on the CW inspection, saying it was unlikely to provide definitive proof as to whom was responsible, and that such proof might only be available through sigint or a defector ...

    PS The site has shut me out on my old name and password for a while. I've tried to get it to reset the password, it says it has sent me an email, but nothing ever turns up. Has anyone else had this problem?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 3,047
    TimT2 said:

    @ Yokel. Did a talking head piece two days ago for CBC on the CW inspection, saying it was unlikely to provide definitive proof as to whom was responsible, and that such proof might only be available through sigint or a defector ...

    And weren't sigint and defectors what set the US barking up the wrong tree in Iraq?
  • timtim Posts: 14,528
    edited August 2013
    One thing you can say about Chris Huhne, I bet he'd find a way of missing this vote.

    Although we can seek solace in the fact that if there's one thing madder than ME politics, it's Britain's madder than mad housing policy under Bubble Boy Osborne.

    "George Osborne's homes scheme could sideline first-time buyers, say lenders
    Help to Buy scheme may 'give with one hand and take with the other' by pushing costs up by 11% by the end of 2016

    "However, the second part, which will be introduced at the start of 2014 and will offer a taxpayer-backed guarantee to lenders who offer mortgages worth up to 95% of the property's value, has attracted criticism from economists, politicians and other commentators, who have warned it could fuel a house price bubble. Albert Edwards, who heads the global strategy team at Société Générale, described it as a "moronic policy".

    IMLA, whose members include subsidiaries of Santander, Barclays and Nationwide that offer mortgages through brokers, said 60% of its members believed the scheme could be undermined by a house price bubble."

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/28/george-osborne-housing-policies-damage?CMP=twt_gu

    The sunny policy where everyone ends up with the shi'te end of the stick.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 1,461
    We should just keep out of it. The middle east is even more of a tinderbox at the moment, and we don't need to pour any more fuel on it. Aid to help the civilians sure, but as our response militarily will most likely consist of a few symbolic middle strikes, it'll do no practical good. The only aim being a face saving exercise for Obama and to make politicians feel a bit better
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    This is a bit odd - what's the inside track? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23852962

    A West Midlands UKIP MEP has been told he cannot stand for the party in the next European elections. Mike Nattrass, who has been both chairman and deputy leader, was told he failed a candidate assessment.

    He said: "I just want the members to decide who should stand, that's what the party rules say but those rules have been broken." In May 2012 he said he would retire before the European elections in 2014, but changed his mind shortly after. UKIP's candidate selection process involves a two-hour assessment which includes public speaking, an interview and a written test.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701

    We should just keep out of it. The middle east is even more of a tinderbox at the moment, and we don't need to pour any more fuel on it. Aid to help the civilians sure, but as our response militarily will most likely consist of a few symbolic middle strikes, it'll do no practical good. The only aim being a face saving exercise for Obama and to make politicians feel a bit better

    Quite. And stir up some homegrown would be terrorists of our own.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 1,571
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 27th August - Con 34%, Lab 39%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%; APP -30
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    WTF? This is just appalling.

    "Tens of thousands of patients are dying needlessly in hospital every year from kidney failure linked to dehydration, NHS officials have revealed.

    They calculate that up to 42,000 deaths a year would be avoided if staff ensured patients had enough to drink and carried out simple tests. NICE, the NHS watchdog, is today issuing guidelines to staff to help them prevent deaths from the condition – known as acute kidney injury – which is common in the elderly and patients with heart disease, diabetes and blood infections.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403501/Thousands-dying-thirst-NHS-Watchdog-forced-issue-guidelines-giving-patients-water.html#ixzz2dEnibvgy

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 1,554
    edited August 2013
    @Ricardohos

    Don't challenge my integrity when I pointed to MORI polling that your assertion about the Falklands was totally wrong.

    "If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south.

    Source or apology please.

  • timtim Posts: 14,528
    edited August 2013
    Before the PB Tory stats geniuses run away with themselves.

    "Notes to Editors"

    "What proportion of cases are preventable?
    Some 20-30% of cases of AKI are regarded partially or fully preventable. This figure is around 12,000 per year"

    http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/NewNICEKidneyGuidelineToSaveThousandsOfLives.jsp

    Anyone taking time out to explain this needs to set aside five days of their lives if the "13,000 deaths" affair is a guide.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,446
    edited August 2013
    Let's check Tony Blair Cameron's inept spinner's 'logic' for this stupidity.

    It's to prevent chemical weapon attacks.

    Small problem. The rebels have already said they are prepared to retaliate with their own chemical weapon attacks and both sides have been implicated in their use before this.
    So that's bollocks.

    It will force the Russians to negotiate.

    So why no ultimatum but instead a timetable for attack regardless of what the Russians or anyone else does? Obama pulled the U.S. out of talks with the Russians over Syria already back when he was annoyed that Putin wouldn't give him the whistleblower Snowden. The Russians will respond by escalating the firepower and support to Syria just as the U.S. wants to for the rebels. Sounds like a foolproof plan for a political solution with the welfare of the Syrian civilians foremost in everyone's mind, doesn't it?

    This isn't like Iraq.

    Then stop making the precise same idiot moves from Iraq by using the same arguments and not allowing the U.N. weapon inspectors the time to do their jobs properly . Does the name Hans Blix seem familiar?
    Trita Parsi ‏@tparsi 5h

    Hans Blix: Obama, Like Bush, Is Disregarding International Law. Obama refusal to wait for UN inspectors echoes Iraq "Political dynamics are running ahead of due process" http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2013/0827/America-is-not-the-world-s-policeman-in-Syria-or-Iraq
    Simply repeatedly asserting that Assad was behind the chemical attack won't cut it. It's vacuous Blairite drivel and spin. It obviously needs proved for anyone to take it seriously as a cause for launching dozens of cruise missiles into Syria. If this was really about sending a message over chemical weapons then treat it like a war crime, let the weapons inspectors do their job and do what Amnesty International called for since 2011 and refer war crimes on both sides to the ICC to eventually try to prosecute those responsible. Instead we get the rush to bomb with the cheerleaders immediately pretending that bombing the shit out of Syria during an intractable civil war is the only possible solution.

    Cammie's spinners don't get to pretend Assad is the only 'bad guy' or that the intelligence couldn't be just as flawed and easily manipulated as it was in Iraq.

    Those who love to get involved in intractable wars don't exactly have a great track record of knowing how to get out of them.
  • Has Salmond expressed an opinion on Syria yet ?
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    edited August 2013

    @Ricardohos

    Don't challenge my integrity when I pointed to MORI polling that your assertion about the Falklands was totally wrong.

    "If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south.

    Source or apology please.

    Thanks but I will question your facts.

    The Argentinians invaded on 2nd April. You posted up a poll from 14th April, by which time the task force was merrily sailing south, the tabloids were whipping up the country and Maggie was turning her personal tide.

    Notice I said 'if' you had taken a poll 'you would have been lucky'. I didn't say there was a poll taken on 2nd April. It was your sleight of hand that posted up a poll as if to disprove my point when it was actually taken a fortnight later.

    Next time pause before throwing out an injudicious word like 'bollocks' just because it doesn't fit your personal political preferences. Mind you, like the good liberal you are you'll probably ban me for daring to say that.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 3,346

    Has Salmond expressed an opinion on Syria yet ?

    He's cancelled any future meeting with the Dalia Llama.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 2,473
    MikeL said:

    Can't see anything on here re what happens if Cameron loses the vote.

    Is there a possibility he would have to resign?

    No; Cammo will just go into a big sulk and then find some underhand way to carry on his war aims. Whatever they are.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    JackW said:

    Has Salmond expressed an opinion on Syria yet ?

    He's cancelled any future meeting with the Dalia Llama.

    Isn't he at TVC reading out bits of Dr King's speech? It's like Band Aid meets McPherson Report.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 2,746
    Were there any polls before 14th April? If not then how do you justify your statement?

    I remember those times well. There was tremendous popular support for that war, which was caused by an attack on British territory, and the surrender of the governor and the platoon of royal marines on the Falklands.

    The contrast with this unpopular war with a country that we have little connection with is striking.

    The response by the Saudis below is astonishing if true, but given a choice between Russia or the Saudis give me the Russians any time.

    @Ricardohos

    Don't challenge my integrity when I pointed to MORI polling that your assertion about the Falklands was totally wrong.

    "If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south.

    Source or apology please.

    Thanks but I will question your facts.

    The Argentinians invaded on 2nd April. You posted up a poll from 14th April, by which time the task force was merrily sailing south, the tabloids were whipping up the country and Maggie was turning her personal tide.

    Notice I said 'if' you had taken a poll 'you would have been lucky'. I didn't say there was a poll taken on 2nd April. It was your sleight of hand that posted up a poll as if to disprove my point when it was actually taken a fortnight later.

    Next time pause before throwing out an injudicious word like 'bollocks' just because it doesn't fit your personal political preferences. Mind you, like the good liberal you are you'll probably ban me for daring to say that.

  • timtim Posts: 14,528
    @TelePolitics: Blog: If David Cameron loses a vote in the Commons on war against Syria he's in the soup http://t.co/nFAa9B8PjL

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 945
    2003 not about regime change, about weapons of mass destruction.
    2013 not about "removing Assad" , about chemical weapons.

    Only difference as things stand, in 2003 their was a serious attempt to engage the UN, military preparations were better and the evidence of chemical weapon use was not disputed with casualties in 10,000s.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    I think we should send badgers to Syria. #BMD
  • JackWJackW Posts: 3,346
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    Has Salmond expressed an opinion on Syria yet ?

    He's cancelled any future meeting with the Dalia Llama.

    Isn't he at TVC reading out bits of Dr King's speech? It's like Band Aid meets McPherson Report.
    Politicians of any persuasion might do worse than read from Dr King's works however I feel Salmond in his quiet moments of reflection or perhaps in his memoirs might consider that a putative leader of an independent nation shouldn't have who he meets dictated by a foreign power.

    Independence is what it says on the tin.

  • timtim Posts: 14,528
    edited August 2013
    Jonathan said:

    2003 not about regime change, about weapons of mass destruction.
    2013 not about "removing Assad" , about chemical weapons.

    Only difference as things stand, in 2003 their was a serious attempt to engage the UN, military preparations were better and the evidence of chemical weapon use was not disputed with casualties in 10,000s.

    At least we'll hear no more from Lib Dems bleating about illegal wars after Nick Cleggs hypocrisy stockpiles are subject to UN inspection.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 2,031
    edited August 2013
    Rewriting of Attlee's words on Chamberlain: "Neville annoys me by mouthing the arguments of complete pacifism while piling up armaments."

    "David Cameron annoys me by mouthing the arguments of limited warfare while reducing armaments."

    If the chemical weapons were used by Assaad, Cameron ought to be asking why, and also considering why other states outside the Middle East are not getting involved. The Times photo of Cameron reminds me of action man poses by Gordon Brown - absurd shots of fat grey suited men in a hurry.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 3,346
    tim said:

    Jonathan said:

    2003 not about regime change, about weapons of mass destruction.
    2013 not about "removing Assad" , about chemical weapons.

    Only difference as things stand, in 2003 their was a serious attempt to engage the UN, military preparations were better and the evidence of chemical weapon use was not disputed with casualties in 10,000s.

    At least we'll hear no more from Lib Dems bleating about illegal wars after Nick Cleggs hypocrisy stockpiles are subject to UN inspection.
    And if Ed votes for action will we hear less from Cheshire farmers about hypocrisy and Ed voting for previous illegal wars ?

  • Jonathan said:

    2003 not about regime change, about weapons of mass destruction.
    2013 not about "removing Assad" , about chemical weapons.

    Only difference as things stand, in 2003 their was a serious attempt to engage the UN, military preparations were better and the evidence of chemical weapon use was not disputed with casualties in 10,000s.

    But that use was 15 years earlier, when Saddam Hussein was "our s-o-a-b".

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 2,312
    To reply to hunchman on the last thread - I'm not close enough to the current PLP to be confident, but I don 't detect any great groundswell of opinion in Labour: my own opposition to intervention has generated precisely one response (he expressed doubts). So I'd guess that the majority will go along with missile strikes if they're specifically presented as a response to the chemical attacks. Overall I'd guess that there will be a large majority for it in Parliament, maybe 3-1, and it won't have significant domestic political impact.

    If it's thought to go well, there should be a bit of upside for the Government; if it's thought to lead to a bad outcome, a bit of downside, but generally even most political people think it's tricky and aren't fully engaged on either side of the argument - as noted, even Caroline Lucas isn't too sure. As with Libya, the fact that it's about long-range attacks with little obvious scope for Syrian retaliation means that people don't feel as strongly.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    Sarah Wollaston MP @drwollastonmp
    'Back me or sack me' becomes 'back me or I'll sack you' or 'back me or forget the reshuffle' . How a whipped vote stacks the deck
  • Perhaps revealing that the whole intervention movement became more active when SamCam took an interest in it:

    http://news.sky.com/story/1115922/syria-samantha-cameron-pushing-for-action

    At least when SamCam was worried about the polar bears all Dave had to do was put a non-working windmill on their house.

    Has anyone any ideas what the next fashionable causes among Soho Bohos are likely to be ?

    But its more fuel for the theory that government policy is driven by Dave's insecurities.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 1,181
    I suspect that, if my friends and relations are any guide, public opinion is along the lines of "both sides are a lot of nasty b ******s and we really don't want to get involved!" coupled with "Something ought to be done about the refugees!"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 1,779

    Seems so.

    I am often critical of Farage as far as his internal UKIP politics is concerned but in this case I think both morally and politically he is absolutely right. Politically UKIP can only benefit from being the only major party to oppose action (if indeed that is where the parties end up).

    More importantly on a purely moral/practical level, our intervention will not make Syria a better or safer place, nor is there much chance it will lead to a more stable, democratic, tolerant or West friendly rule in the country.

    I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I agree with all of that.

    It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,497
    edited August 2013
    Hague has looked like a schoolboy in a sweetshop for months at the possibility of bombing someone. It's the most inept selling job by a government minister I can remember. So inept infact I'd be surprised if the public even believe the Syrian government were behind the chemical attack.

    Politically this could do for Labour what Iraq did for the Lib Dems. They could become the SOLE party of reason and legality (A long overdue Mikveh bath after Iraq). Opportunities to show leadership are rare for the opposition and they they don't come more gilt edged than this.

    As Edmund says it's also a big chance for an opportunistic Lib Dem to secure the next leadership slot. A well timed resignation is probably all it'll take.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 2,312
    Incidentally - YouGov's secondaries show no significant movement on anything. Most people are still basically switched off politics.
  • timtim Posts: 14,528
    Sean_F said:

    Seems so.

    I am often critical of Farage as far as his internal UKIP politics is concerned but in this case I think both morally and politically he is absolutely right. Politically UKIP can only benefit from being the only major party to oppose action (if indeed that is where the parties end up).

    More importantly on a purely moral/practical level, our intervention will not make Syria a better or safer place, nor is there much chance it will lead to a more stable, democratic, tolerant or West friendly rule in the country.

    I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I agree with all of that.

    It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP.

    Blimey Charlie, Kipper surge hits hardcore PB Tory shocker.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 3,346
    Two further points worthy of note.

    Firstly the position and advice of Dominic Grieve will be crucial. As Attorney general he will instruct the Cabinet as to the legality of military action against the Assad junta.

    Secondly, the Prime Minister has cemented the precedent set by Tony Blair concerning the consultation of the House of Commons when military action is considered necessary. It's unlikely that any future Prime Minister would contemplate such action without the express approval of parliament even though he may still do so through exercise of the royal prerogative.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 2,312
    Sean_F said:



    More importantly on a purely moral/practical level, our intervention will not make Syria a better or safer place, nor is there much chance it will lead to a more stable, democratic, tolerant or West friendly rule in the country.

    I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.

    I agree with all of that.

    It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP.
    Interesting that SeanF has joined UKIP. Farage leads lots of people like him - right-wing but also obviously sane.

    That said, in a non-party sense I largely agree with Richard Tyndall's analysis, though I'm not really sure. It does seem likely that Assad has used chemical weapons, and there's a case for having some red lines which everyone thinks it unwise to cross and showing it has real costs if one does. But we shouldn't be killing people unless we're sure it'll have net benefits, and it's hard to see how we can be remotely sure.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 1,788
    Popcorn sales are rocketing.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,497
    @Sean

    "It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP."

    Do I take it you are no longer a Tory?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    norman smith @BBCNormanS
    Labour set to whip MPs to back Miliband stance over #syria - We whipped over iraq and Libya so fair to expect will whip over Syria.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 6,701
    Rachel Burden @rachelburden
    50 yrs since Dr King's 'I Have A Dream'.. a Glaswegian man is claiming racial discimination after he was denied free ketchup with his chips.
  • MikeL said:

    Can't see anything on here re what happens if Cameron loses the vote.

    Is there a possibility he would have to resign?

    If he had any sense he would just say "OK. Fine. What happens in Syria now is your fault".
Sign In or Register to comment.