POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

And of course Tory immigration policy was always a model of efficiency and integrity.....
Funny isn't it how it was OK for us to colonise and invade countries but a no-no when they came across here.

[Tardis]

And of course Tory immigration policy was always a model of efficiency and integrity.....
Funny isn't it how it was OK for us to colonise and invade countries but a no-no when they came across here.

If there is a problem with immigration, it won't be helped by finger pointing by either side but by a clear debate

[Stanley]

Quite.....

[Thomo]

Immigration, and the same old squawk about Colonialism in the past. How many of you have been to the countries that we relinquished, How many of you have seen at first hand what now exists there, I have! So, if we were that terrible, then why come here? Is it "get your own back" or because we are a soft touch. Most immigrants that come to our country want to make a better life for themselves, but this should not be at the expense of they who have given much to this country. If they want to live here and be happy and accepted, there are rules by which they should abide, and without that understanding, it will not work. This is only a small Island, and is not made of elastic. Come here, Fine, but integrate.

[Stanley]

Squawking eh.... Funny how every reference to history is ignored by some people. I happen to believe that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past so sorry, I shall continue 'squawking'. As for integration I agree but that is an entirely different matter.

[Tardis]

Another day, another ex-minister wheeled out to support Ed, whilst others point at the vacuum of uncertainty

[Stanley]

Why is it that I find it impossible to take at face value anything that Teresa May says?

[Stanley]

New PE arrived yesterday. As usual it is full of incredible stories of nepotism and linkages between MPs and lobbyists. The one that grabbed me is a piece about Tory Dan Byles' claim that his new All Party Group on fracking will help Parliament to cut through "rhetoric and hyperbole on both sides" and "get to the facts". Great stuff till you read who finances the group and even provides the secretariat. Apart from Cuadrilla there are all the leading interests in promoting fracking. You couldn't make it up.....

[Stanley]

I heard a Tory MP speaking last night on 'The Week in Parliament' and she was banging on about 'The Economic Recovery'. In truth, there is no sign of any recovery for many at the moment and their condition is getting worse as inflation outpaces wage rises, the cost of essentials goes up faster than general inflation, the cuts continue and bite deeper and the money being injected into the housing market drives rents and house prices up. We are two nations and the bottom half is being ignored in the electioneering. If the Opposition want a focus, this is where it ought to be, deprivation at the bottom paying for minor advance at the top. However, there is no sign of any principled debate, Milliband relies on one speech at the Party Conference to claw his way out of the hole he is in and there are no signs of any concerted recognition of the major problems that are building up. We used to talk about 'Thatcher's Children', in a few years it may have changed to 'Cameron's' (or Osborne's....).

[Tardis]

I was listening to World Service last night/this morning where they were discussing the Indian Govt's current $80 billion subsidy of food for 2/3rds of the population, stating that it is unsupportable

Food prices must be allowed to rise because there is so much wealth washing around and attracted to the country in the form of gold.

[Stanley]

Just for once Labour appear to have fulfilled the role of HM Opposition. They have influenced the government to draw back from immediate action against Syria. Cameron now says they will wait to hear what the UN weapons inspectors have to report. Sounds like common sense to me. I note that Blair was poking his oar in advocating military action. No surprise there!

[Tizer]

Just for once Labour appear to have fulfilled the role of HM Opposition....

Thank goodness for that! Perhaps they'll go part way towards making up for Blair's big mistake. How does the West come to believe that it owns Planet Earth and can dictate to China and Russia how to run the world? China has 25 times more people than does the USA; Russia has fewer people than the USA but nearly twice the land area. And the UK is a minnow on both accounts. Perhaps the West still thinks the rest of the world is filled with ignorant, primitive people living in mud huts!

[hartley353]

Bellicose Cameron may not get it all his own way now, and his puppetmaster Obama may be left out on his own, it is almost surreal that I am hearing this. But in the background is the voice of Tony Blair telling us to get stuck in. This is a man who never amounted to a hill of beans, yet people pay good money to hear him speak, this is a very strange world where there is no cream at the top only dross. Truly the lunatics are running the asylum.

[Tardis]

I do find Miliband's stance odd, because the amendment was published before the government got their debate motion out.

The fact that Miliband can play politics over such a sensitive issue is because there are at least 70 Tory MP's who have expressed deep concerns, two of which are May and Hammond (who would have to resign if they disobeyed the whip), so the Coalition would not have a majority without Labour trooping through the lobbies, which they were initially supporting before the recall.

To do greater political damage would surely have been to force those cabinet ministers to resign by siding with the motion.

The fact that a YouGov poll suggests that less than 9% of the population supports any action in Syria is probably also a legacy of Bliar and Campbell's actions over the Iraq invasion and may have reasonably swayed opinion.

[Thomo]

I am not a fan of Ed or his party, but he would get my full support on this one. There are too many "If's" and those with their own agenda around whatever happened to commit any resources in that area. Modern chemical weapons no longer need a delivery vehicle and can be used by individuals as demonstrated in the attack in Japan several years ago. Add to this that it is known that factions are involved amongst the opposition that have no compunction whatsoever about killing their own kind to gain their own objectives. In short, this is one episode we would do well to keep away from. The media should be a little less generous with their view of it all as well, speculation can have a disastrous climax!!

[plaques]

Even with so called surgical strikes with laser precision accuracy there must be what is called euphemistically collateral damage. Dropping a cruise missile into a storage depot of nerve agents won’t result in a simple puff of smoke. Think of the end results if this happened in a built up area. Would Cameron and parliament be hauled up in front of the war crimes commission?
Until we know the facts behind this tragic event we should hold off any military intervention.

[Stanley]

It looks as though common sense has prevailed. Not only did Cameron lose the vote which would have allowed him to raise the matter again after the UN report but he was asked the direct question, "Would he use the Royal Prerogative" which of course is what Blair used to embroil us in Iraq and Afghanistan. His answer was unequivocal, he recognises that Parliament is reflecting the views of the country at large and the vote means no military intervention. (LINK)
This could have repercussions. The fact that Cameron lost the vote will be seized on by his enemies inside the Tory party as evidence he has lost his grip.
The hoary old question about what would be the effect on the mythical 'special relationship' with the US was raised. I don't think the US will be affected in the slightest. They have their own problems with public appetite for foreign adventures.

[Tizer]

One of the best discussions I've heard on the decision about Syria was on the Today programme this morning when they asked for the opinions from their panel of `ordinary' people. These folk were sensible and had penetrating insights and it's very worthwhile listening too. When this morning's `Today' material becomes available (probably tomorrow) on `Listen Again' or as podcasts look for it listed as around 08.45 on 30th August.

[hartley353]

What I want to see now is the withdrawal of warplanes from Cyprus down to the norm. The American and Russian warships to leave the waters, and Syria to resolve its problems within its sovereign rights. How can America condemn the use of chemical weapons with its Viet Nam history, how can Cameron decry the use with this countries history at Portland downs. It sounds like the kettle calling the pots black. Still we have to be thankful for what appears to be an outbreak of common sense as small as it is. From little acorns mighty oaks are grown.

[Tardis]

If yesterday's parliamentary debate had been held under Scottish Law, then I think that we could safely say "not proved" with the defeat of both motions. The presence of the bitter taste left by Blair and Campbell dominated the debate, even being used to directly destroy Jack Straw's contribution.

Besides the rebels, more than 30 Tory MP's abstained

Has sanity prevailed? Certainly the BBC and the people of Syria appear to think otherwise. Myself, I think parliament said 'wait' and Obama certainly isn't carrying US public opinion

Lord Daniel Finklestein: “Syria is the Iraq of the non-interventionists. We did nothing and the situation got worse. And the worse the situation got, the more we used it as an excuse to do nothing. Thus we are told that the opposition is now controlled by Islamic fundamentalists, while the liberal dissidents are nowhere. But this is hardly surprising when every force in Syria is being provided with support and weapons — except for the liberal dissidents. In Iraq we invaded to find no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; in Syria we did nothing and it turns out they did have stockpiles of chemical weapons and they used them.”

Dan Hodges: "Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway...Every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.
This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too"

[Stanley]

The airwaves are full this morning.... Funnily enough the chatter is almost all about 'The Special Relationship'. The US didn't help yesterday when they described France as their 'oldest friend'. Historically accurate of course because the French supported the nascent US state in the War of independence where we were definitely not friends!
References to the UK 'losing its place at the top table'. High time we did! This concept of being a 'world power' is more to do with politician's egos than real politics. Not a word that I detected about the incendiary attack on the playground or the millions of Syrians killed or displaced in the civil war. This got me to thinking about why there should be a difference between an attack using nerve gas in rockets and the bog standard chemistry in other weaponry. I'm afraid the conclusion I have come to is that the difference between them is that there is a possibility that if such attacks became commonplace they could be directed at us. I'm old enough to remember carrying my gas mask wherever I went in WW2 and sitting in the Anderson shelter while genuine WMD dropped on us out of the sky so I suppose I'm a bit more realistic about these things.
What is happening in Syria is wrong, no doubt about that but the question is what can we do about it? The answer sadly is very little apart from steady diplomatic pressure. This applies to all the other places in the world where terrible things are happening. There is another matter that worries me.... Look back, do your research and reading and recognise where Saddam got the precursor chemicals for his manufacture and use of nerve gas against his own people. What was the source of the Syrian nerve gas? People have short memories and can be very hypocritical.
As for the vilification of Labour and Milliband, ask the people who marched against the incursion into Iraq if they would have welcomed such a principled stand then. Of course it's politics, that's what politics is all about, the exertion of opposition by democratic means. The thing that really bugs the Tories is that come the election many will not forget who was warmongering and bigging up our importance in the interests of being seen as 'statesmen' and 'world leaders'. Time we realised that those days have gone and the national interest would be best served by attending to our own knitting. Remember Kipling after the death of his son in WW1. "If they ask you why we died, tell them that our fathers lied". He saw the light but it took personal tragedy to bring it home to him.

[Tizer]

`The Special Relationship' seems to have been absent when the US were compiling their document which is purported to give the evidence for Assad being responsible for the gas attack. Obama knew the vote was imminent in the UK but either he or his security people chose not to share the information they already had. On the other hand, perhaps they really knew that the information is not convincing enough and therefore decided there was no point in sharing it then. And do we trust information put together by the CIA and by people who seem to have that `God is on our side' belief? (I wonder if that dates back to February 20, 1955, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated that "Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism?)

I can't see what military action Obama can take without causing even more trouble. Even if he doesn't kill people he will destroy Syrian government buildings, weapons etc and put his country and allies firmly into the rebel camp (which seems to have strong links with Al Quaeda, whether it wants them or not). Once you go down that route there's no turning back. We should be gathering much more information and working hard to convince Russia and China until we get them converted and then the UN can back a united front.

[Tripps]

Perhaps it's time to mention again the record of the RAF on the subject of bombing with gas. SCG introduced us to the subject on the old site, and mentioned one - David Omissi, Senior lecturer in History at Hull University, and expert on colonial history. This book is particularly relevant . LINK

As you see it is very expensive for a paperback. I recall emailimg this chap to ask whether he had any plans to re publish at a more reasonable price, but received no reply.

As usual it is hard to fathom the truth about British use of gas bombing. The left portray it as the work of evil colonialists, whilst apologist for Churchill, and others others insist the gas was only tear gas, with no lasting harmful effects. Here's the Guardians take - LINK

This is all a bit incoherent, and I am no historian, but the matter is a bit poignant to me, since I have in my desk drawer as I type this, a letter written in pencil, from my stepfather's father from Mesopotamia dated April 1916 to his wife, and a letter from the War office saying that "no further news having been received - the Army Council have been regretfully constrained to conclude that he is dead, and that his death took place on 9th April 1916.

It's about time we embraced the 21st century, and put all this sort of stuff behind us. I'm told Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam and warnings at the time about 'domino effect' seem to have been overdone. Who'd have thought at the time that we would be going there for holidays now.

[Tardis]

I'm not convinced by Paddy Ashdown's comments about Syria being the modern equivalent of Czechoslovakia, mainly because I know that I wasn't around at the time and I only have history books written by the victors to go off. I find it worrying, however, that I can imagine Ed stepping off a plane brandishing a piece of paper in his hand.

I also note the comments about the French being the US's longest serving ally, which revives all those long memories of the seven years war, and their more detailed intelligence, but also their Congress being empty during the debate.

It is a lot of pressure to heap on the UN and will opinions change?

Meanwhile Syria know that whilst we have the ability, we didn't fit any switches to allow anything more than 'glaring' across the border. Only a velvet glove

[plaques]

The lack of detail about the chemical attack in Syria is worrying. We read that over 1400 people have been killed. A tragic loss of life. This number of deaths raises the question of how much nerve agent was used and how many rockets / bombs were needed to deliver it. I would have thought that the “rebels” would have been collecting this spent ordinance up and showing it to the world. Could it have possibly been that the Government shelling has hit an unknown rebel storage depot. I think Parliament has done the correct thing in waiting for a more conclusive answer.