Agree on your first two points

But on your last point I really think you've lost the plot a bit, or been listening to the spin of too many coalition spokespeople. The Government were looking to get a vote in favour of military action, and despite what has been 'leaked' by Govt spokespeople Miliband didn't back this position at the meeting of the three party leaders. He listened, which Cameron & Clegg interpreted as support. When he came out of the meeting he made the same points about evidence and international law in the TV interviews I saw (despite Channel 4 news attempt to portray it differently) He subsequently argued for getting the evidence and using the UN, and threatened an amendment to the Govt motion calling for this. Douglas Alexander has been the main driver in this - and even this was controversial in the Labour Party, many of whose members and MP's want no hint of military action. When this was to,d to Cameron, it was first rejected, then when the Govt whips started feeding back that the support wasn't there Cameron 'back tracked' and tried to craft a motion that met Milibands amendment - otherwise the motion last night would have been one calling for a military response - even Tory commentators have acknowledged that. Having the amendment and the main motion, and both being rejected actually worked to clarify Parliaments view at this early stage rather than leaving open the possibility of a further vote more explicitly about military action.

The irony is that I think Miliband had a poor performance last night, and I disagreed with his amendment for the same reason I wouldn't have supported the Govt motion. Wollaston, whose article I linked, and the 30 odd other Tories are unlikely to have gone into the the No lobby had they put the same interpretation on Milibands interventions as you have - and as for Hamond with all his 'succour to Assad' nonsense, just puerile idiocy. Given your other views I just find it odd that you've chosen to get so steamed up about Milibands action - especially on a football forum.

Posted By: Tressells Broadbrush on August 30th 2013 at 18:23:37

Message Thread

Text of the Commons motion on Syria last night wasn't for military action.... (General Chat) - Kirrie, Aug 30, 16:12:41
- What you going on about 'bor (General Chat) - Tressells Broadbrush, Aug 30, 17:01:08
  - With respect, I haven't really voiced an opinon about the motion itself... (General Chat) - Kirrie, Aug 30, 17:09:53
    - Agree on your first two points (General Chat) - Tressells Broadbrush, Aug 30, 18:23:37
- yes, and? It included wording on the principle of military action (General Chat) - Hertz van Rental, Aug 30, 16:14:28
  - But military action by the UK would have explicitly required another vote, no? (n/m) (General Chat) - Kirrie, Aug 30, 16:19:28
    - Correct (General Chat) - Hertz van Rental, Aug 30, 16:20:32
      - and, to his credit DavCam is respecting that (n/m) (General Chat) - Hertz van Rental, Aug 30, 16:21:07
        
        If Dave had tried to use prerogative powers to push through military action (General Chat) - Waddockhunt, Aug 30, 16:27:08
        
        Prime Minister of a coalition during a worldwide downturn.. (General Chat) - phrankin, Aug 30, 17:50:27
        
        There will be no leadership challenge (General Chat) - dennis moore, Aug 30, 16:50:49

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.