The 2015 General Election

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Check out Graham Linehan's twitter feed if you want a lowdown on the DUP's enlightened views.

 

Then remember that 1. this is part of the UK and 2. they could have an important role to play come The Great Scramble.

Edited April 24, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[smetrov]

 

Think Milliband has just handed victory to the Tories - by blaming him for the boat people deaths - puts immigration right back in the spotlight - can't understand why EM has brought this into the election campaign - should be focusing on NHS ...Cuts... 

 

seems a strange one , he actually backed the military involvement in Libya ,obviously this was in the days before he played politics with thousands of lives as he did in Syria  , so isn't he as much to blame ?if indeed any blame is to be had .

 

 

Dunno - but its a brave man who even hints to the electorate that would should be taking more refugees

[chrisp65]

Check out Graham Linehan's twitter feed if you want a lowdown on the DUP's enlightened views.

 

Then remember that 1. this is part of the UK and 2. they could have an important role to play come The Great Scramble.

 

In all fairness to the DUP Health Minister Jim Wells, he has now apologised for saying that adoptive gay parents are more likely to be child abusers. 

'The comments I made do not reflect my views or those of my party'.

 

I suspect the comments he made actually do very much reflect his views, he just knows they can only really be aired amongst friends and colleagues not holding up mobile phones.

[blandy]

seems a strange one , he actually backed the military involvement in Libya ,obviously this was in the days before he played politics with thousands of lives as he did in Syria  , so isn't he as much to blame ?if indeed any blame is to be had .

That's complete bollocks, though Tony. Reason being, Cameron wanted to do a war in Syria, decided he needed to have a parliament vote on doing a war, and Labour voted against doing a war.

Maybe the reasons for voting against were "politics", maybe they were because it was (and still is) completely unclear who exactly "we" would be doing a war against. Maybe it's because it's completely unclear whether there are any "good guys". Who do you drop0 the bombs on? who do you shoot the guns at?

 

Surely if anyone was "playing politics" it was the eejits who thought that joining in all the killing to look like they were "doing something" were the ones playing politics with people's lives.

 

No doubt Labour was pleased when Cameron lost his vote, both because military intervention would have made things worse, and because Dave was shown to be a pillock.

 

Whenever we've got involved in the middle east, with all the war-y stuff, it's not seemed to have gone too well, has it? Primie Ministers and Presidents wanting to look all statesman like and "strong" don't seem to learn that doing a war ends up making them look like words removed. (c.f Mr Bliar, GWB, Nixon etc)_

[chrisp65]

 

 

"In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter and stops the Gaddafi regime's threats in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious," he said.

"David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya's was a country whose institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.

"The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided.

"And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle."

 

Lefty BBC article on the actual speech

 

I'm struggling to see what's quite so offensive to the tories in that speech?

I suspect we are all being treated to a 'westminster village' tiff over the staged angry reaction to a leaked over egged preview of not very much.

[smetrov]

 

 

 

"In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter and stops the Gaddafi regime's threats in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious," he said.

"David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya's was a country whose institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.

"The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided.

"And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle."

 

Lefty BBC article on the actual speech

 

I'm struggling to see what's quite so offensive to the tories in that speech?

I suspect we are all being treated to a 'westminster village' tiff over the staged angry reaction to a leaked over egged preview of not very much.

 

 

Maybe......equally I don't see why Ed went there - there are really no votes in it for him. It would be a bit like the Tories trumpetting Andrew Lansleys Health reforms...

[tonyh29]

 

seems a strange one , he actually backed the military involvement in Libya ,obviously this was in the days before he played politics with thousands of lives as he did in Syria  , so isn't he as much to blame ?if indeed any blame is to be had .

That's complete bollocks, though Tony. Reason being, Cameron wanted to do a war in Syria, decided he needed to have a parliament vote on doing a war, and Labour voted against doing a war.

Maybe the reasons for voting against were "politics", maybe they were because it was (and still is) completely unclear who exactly "we" would be doing a war against. Maybe it's because it's completely unclear whether there are any "good guys". Who do you drop0 the bombs on? who do you shoot the guns at?

 

Surely if anyone was "playing politics" it was the eejits who thought that joining in all the killing to look like they were "doing something" were the ones playing politics with people's lives.

 

No doubt Labour was pleased when Cameron lost his vote, both because military intervention would have made things worse, and because Dave was shown to be a pillock.

 

Whenever we've got involved in the middle east, with all the war-y stuff, it's not seemed to have gone too well, has it? Primie Ministers and Presidents wanting to look all statesman like and "strong" don't seem to learn that doing a war ends up making them look like words removed. (c.f Mr Bliar, GWB, Nixon etc)_

 

with respect Pete , it isn't bollocks , and that's uncalled for

 

Miliband told Clegg and Cameron he would back the vote , he then asked for some concessions that were given and he again agreed to deliver the vote  ..he then went away and asked for some more concessions , which again were given  ..and so he promised to vote with the government

 

and then didn't

 

it was all rather shameful , all the more so when Miliband came out the other day and told the viewing public how he stopped the "war"

Edited April 24, 2015 by tonyh29

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

"In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter and stops the Gaddafi regime's threats in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious," he said.

"David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya's was a country whose institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.

"The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided.

"And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle."

 

Lefty BBC article on the actual speech

 

I'm struggling to see what's quite so offensive to the tories in that speech?

I suspect we are all being treated to a 'westminster village' tiff over the staged angry reaction to a leaked over egged preview of not very much.

 

It's clearly intended and rather subtle in how it's been done , ( maybe too subtle for the average voter )

 

News at 10:00 tonight might possibly lead with a story about the Captain of the boat in court  showing images of  Migrants in sinking boats and pictures of the coffins lined up etc .. and then a few stories later Ed's speech mentioning Libya and specifically blaming Cameron  ...  

 

Saying that I see one news agency has already gone with the less subtle approach and the Headline of "Labour accuses PM over migrant boat deaths

[smetrov]

 

 

 

 

"In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter and stops the Gaddafi regime's threats in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious," he said.

"David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya's was a country whose institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.

"The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided.

"And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle."

 

Lefty BBC article on the actual speech

 

I'm struggling to see what's quite so offensive to the tories in that speech?

I suspect we are all being treated to a 'westminster village' tiff over the staged angry reaction to a leaked over egged preview of not very much.

 

It's clearly intended and rather subtle in how it's been done , ( maybe too subtle for the average voter )

 

News at 10:00 tonight might possibly lead with a story about the Captain of the boat in court  showing images of  Migrants in sinking boats and pictures of the coffins lined up etc .. and then a few stories later Ed's speech mentioning Libya and specifically blaming Cameron  ...  

 

Saying that I see one news agency has already gone with the less subtle approach and the Headline of "Labour accuses PM over migrant boat deaths

 

 

Even if that happened - I wouldn't think that would be a game changer - I really think that people don't vote based on this sort of stuff.... its immigration, Tax, NHS, Welfare, etc....

[chrisp65]

and this is what annoys me so much, with this story, and any 'story' on the NHS and immigrants etc

 

Tomorrow, the Mail will have an article saying Miliband is scum for false accusations calling Cameron a blood thirsty murderer. Meanwhile the Mirror will have an article showing how Miliband saved the world from war and warned Cameron he was about to cause genocide.

 

Neither story is true, neither story will have actual facts. Hundreds of thousands of people will believe the media they've selected because it panders to their prejudice.

 

My dad clutching his Mail will be able to argue with my mother in law clutching her Mirror, both sure it's true because it's in the paper.

 

Either or both of them could possibly read around the subject for 5 minutes, but won't bother. They will then go and vote for their prejudiced choice feeling vindicated they've struck against the liars on the other side.

[colhint]

Didn't Ed say a week or so ago that national security was too important to play politics with?

[chrisp65]

Yep, and Cameron said if he didn't reduce immigration to tens of thousands we should kick him out.

 

All a bunch of shysters.

[blandy]

with respect Pete , it isn't bollocks , and that's uncalled for

 

 

Miliband told Clegg and Cameron he would back the vote , he then asked for some concessions that were given and he again agreed to deliver the vote  ..he then went away and asked for some more concessions , which again were given  ..and so he promised to vote with the government

 

and then didn't

 

it was all rather shameful , all the more so when Miliband came out the other day and told the viewing public how he stopped the "war"

 

Even if what you say were the complete truth, which it most certainly isn't, but even if it were, then your accusation that it was "playing politics with people's lives" - is still complete bollocks.

[tonyh29]

 

with respect Pete , it isn't bollocks , and that's uncalled for

 

 

Miliband told Clegg and Cameron he would back the vote , he then asked for some concessions that were given and he again agreed to deliver the vote  ..he then went away and asked for some more concessions , which again were given  ..and so he promised to vote with the government

 

and then didn't

 

it was all rather shameful , all the more so when Miliband came out the other day and told the viewing public how he stopped the "war"

 

Even if what you say were the complete truth, which it most certainly isn't, but even if it were, then your accusation that it was "playing politics with people's lives" - is still complete bollocks.

 

 

It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.

“Let me tell you - right - let me tell you”, he explained in response to Paxman’s accusation he wouldn’t stand up to Vladimir Putin. “In the summer of 2013 this government proposed action in Syria. The bombing of Syria, right? I was called into a room by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, because president Obama had been on the phone - the leader of the free world, right? I listened to what they said, and over those days I made up my mind, and we said no, right? I think standing up to the leader of the free world shows a certain toughness I would say.”

 

 

And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.

This is the truth about what Ed Miliband did over Syria. He did indeed walk into “a room” to meet David Cameron – it was the Prime Minister’s study in Downing Street. He told David Cameron that he would be prepared to support military action in Syria. He said that the Labour party would need some persuading over the issue, and because of that he would need to win some concessions that he could present to his MPs.

Over the following days the nature of these concessions changed. First Miliband told Cameron he would need to publish legal advice showing military action was legitimate. Cameron agreed. Then Miliband told Cameron he would need to publish the intelligence showing the Assad regime had used chemical weapons. Cameron agreed. Then he said Cameron would need to demonstrate military action had UN approval. Again Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect. Then Ed Miliband said a vote would have to await the formal publication of the UN weapons inspectors reports into the attacks. Cameron agreed. Finally, Miliband said there would have to be not one but two Commons votes before action could be authorised. And again, the Prime Minister agreed.

 

Whilst this was going, both Downing Street and members of the shadow cabinet began to have concerns over Miliband’s intentions over the vote. I was contacted by people on both sides who were close to the ongoing discussions. Downing Street were unsure precisely what was going on. The shadow cabinet sources were very clear what was going on. The Labour whips had been told there would be a significant backbench rebellion if Miliband supported military action. At the same time, Miliband was being warned by a number of senior advisers that he risked a reaction from Labour supporters, in particular, former Lib Dems who had recently switched allegiance.

It was on that basis, and that basis alone, that Ed Miliband decided to vote against the Government. It was not an act of principle. It was not an act of strength. It was an act of political calculation and opportunism born out of political weakness. Stand up to Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin? Ed Miliband wouldn’t stand up to Diane Abbott.

 

Torygraph in this instance but the events themselves are well documented in various other sources  ,

[snowychap]

Not just The Torygraph but Dan Hodges blogging on The Torygraph's website.

That would be Dan 'Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest' Hodges?

 

Edit: Just to make it clear - I'm not sure I'd take that very biased source as reliable on any matter concerning the Labour party (or indeed any party).

Edited April 24, 2015 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

Not just The Torygraph but Dan Hodges blogging on The Torygraph's website.

That would be Dan 'Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest' Hodges?

 

Edit: Just to make it clear - I'm not sure I'd take that very biased source as reliable on any matter concerning the Labour party (or indeed any party).

 

luckily it is a matter of record in parliamentary debate as referenced here by Open democracy  or is that also to bias for you

 

2013: The proposed US-led bombing of Syria

Miliband told Paxman he had stood up to the Prime Minister and “The Leader of the Free World” over Syria in September 2013. The normally questioning Labour backbencher Michael Meacher MP declared Miliband’s actions on Syria will be “recognised as an act of courage and statesmanship that shows his mettle as a leader.”

The reality is a little less heroic than Miliband and Meacher would have us believe.  

A read of the parliamentary debate about the proposed military action shows the Labour motion was very similar to the defeated Government motion, a fact not lost on some of the more experienced foreign affairs experts in the House of Commons. “I can find no difference of substance or principle anywhere in the two offerings”, said Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Foreign Affairs spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. Likewise, former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind noted “virtually all” of Labour’s list of requirements for supporting military action “appear in the Government’s own motion.”

Moreover, in the parliamentary debate Miliband explained he would support military action against Syria without a United Nations Security Council Resolution – essentially agreeing with the Government again. As Jonathan Steele, the Guardian’s former Chief Correspondent, noted “Cameron and Miliband used dubious legal grounds to try to justify bypassing a veto in the UN Security Council by saying western military strikes were needed to protect Syrians.” Does Miliband’s self-serving position on the UN remind you of any other Labour leader?

 

I've also seen reference of this in the Heil ( ok you can have that one)  the Guardian , Politics.co.uk to name but a few

 

I don't think there is a lot of doubt about what went on to be honest

Edited April 24, 2015 by tonyh29

[chrisp65]

He may well have got there by accident, but the action, however dubious or whatever the actual intention did actually stop us getting involved in a Syrian conflict it later transpired we knew next to nothing about.

 

Why knowing nothing about the intricacies of any region in conflicts we get involved in is ALWAYS a surprise to us, probably needs a bit of thought.

[PaulC]

Provide 500,000 social homes for rent by 2020 and control rent levels I think thats a good policy if its feasible. 

[blandy]

I don't think there is a lot of doubt about what went on to be honest

Like, there was a vote on whether we should do a war, and the Gov't lost, because Tory rebels and Labour voted against, you mean? No there's no doubt about that.

 

It's then opinion what the reason(s) for them to vote against were. I doubt there was a single reason for all of them. I imagine there were multiple reasons. Chief amongst them would be Iraq, doubts about how the actual objective (stop people being gassed) could be achieved via air power, concerns over exactly who the good guys and who the bad guys were. Doubts about mission creep. All kinds. There's no doubt that Cameron, Miliband and all the others also had personal aims - "look Prime- Ministerial" or "defeat the Gov't" or "appeal to our left/right wingers" and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

 

I think that for whatever mix of motivations, the vote against war was not "playing politics with people's lives" it was the opposite, to me. It was "not committing to military action, which would lead to deaths, without having a much clearer and better and legal set of aims and plans". That was the vote, for me. How they got there was secondary.

 

And on the various versions of events, there's lots of agreement of who did what. There's also lots of (partisan) views on why. The Torygraph claims Ed was against because he was scared of Diane abbott. The Open Democracy says Miliband isn't anti war enough for their liking. Clegg says it was because Labour wanted to defeat the Gov't in a vote...take your pick, really.

[mjmooney]

I just threw my hands up in despair. Just when Milliband was starting to look credible he does this. Totally unnecessary, and won't win him any votes. He only needs two topics - the rich/poor divide, and the NHS. That's his ticket to No. 10, not this.

Edited April 24, 2015 by mjmooney