Ed Milliband is a ..

[Ridgeway84]

Sorry, what do you mean?

 

Is English your first language?

[Hillpig]

Did Cameron vote if favour of the attack on Iraq, when in opposition?

 

The answer is is he voted strongly in favour of the action.

 

He backed Tony Blair all the way.

 

Quite right, but he was led to by Blair, the majority of the country supported the action because of the lies we were told, this is different, Cameron told the truth and, unlike any previous Prime Minister, went to Parliament to seek approval rather than use the Royal prerogative.

 

This exposed him politically, and Milliband used the opportunity to score cheap short term political points intended to boost his own flagging career rather than, in any way, assist the Syrian people.

 

Milliband is a true heir to Blair, a ruthless immoral coward, more interested in furthering the interests of the bunch of crooks he sits alongside than doing the job of any decent Leader of the Opposition in such circumstances.

[percy filth]

What really struck me about Ed's words after the vote was that it was all about him. "Under MY leadership, the Labour party...". He did it to prove what a Big Man he is.

 

I can't think of a worse example of selfishness and it's a pity because I used to quite like him.

 

David Cameron may be no better deep down but I've not seen him pull a stunt like this.

 

Pity about the 1,400 dead, Ed, eh? Still never mind you proved you are unfit for high office.

[I1L2T3]

Quite right, but he was led to by Blair, the majority of the country supported the action because of the lies we were told, this is different, Cameron told the truth and, unlike any previous Prime Minister, went to Parliament to seek approval rather than use the Royal prerogative.

 

This exposed him politically, and Milliband used the opportunity to score cheap short term political points intended to boost his own flagging career rather than, in any way, assist the Syrian people.

 

Milliband is a true heir to Blair, a ruthless immoral coward, more interested in furthering the interests of the bunch of crooks he sits alongside than doing the job of any decent Leader of the Opposition in such circumstances.

 

Cameron went to parliament because in practical terms he had to. As we've seen there wasn't even unity within his party over this issue. There's no way he could have used the royal prerogative when the people are against the action and that will, for once, is reflected by parliament.

 

And he also went to parliament without full evidence. It's why he lost the vote.

[andyofborg]

Sorry, what do you mean?

 

not sure which bit you are questioning but:

 

i'm not sure that it is really.

 

Was a reference to a previous poster stating that this affair was very damaging to Cameron and Clegg. My view is that, in the longer term, it probably isn't.

 

one thing that might have been achieved is that the ability of the prime minister to embalk on military action without the prior approval of parliament has been curtailed. on balance this is probably a good thing.

 

One of the quirks of the way this country operates is that the power to deploy the military essentially lies with the Prime Minister and the assumption has always been that Parliament would back him regardless. To some extent the loss of the vote in Parliament has undermined that assumption. Clearly, in cases where the security of the realm is definitly at risk then the Prime Minister would have to act immediately and in those cases Parliament should back him. Currently, that sort of situation seems unlikely, but that hasn't always been the case and might again be the case in the future. What has been blocked or at least seriously delayed is the ability of the Prime Minister to engage in a military adventure which might be quite justifiable but isn't a response to a direct threat.

 

This is a good thing for two reasons, the first is that military action is rarely the right answer. In some cases it is, but mostly it isn't. In the specific case of Syria, it seems that military action isn't the right answer despite the horrific actions being perpetrated by all the sides.

 

The second reason is more general, in that it shifts some power away from the executive arm of the government back to the legislature. Over the last 30-40 years the legislature has lost much of it's ability to hold the executive to account and anything which redresses that imbalance is to be applauded and encouraged.

[Stoatwobbler]

The second reason is more general, in that it shifts some power away from the executive arm of the government back to the legislature. Over the last 30-40 years the legislature has lost much of it's ability to hold the executive to account and anything which redresses that imbalance is to be applauded and encouraged.

 

Very true. We need a legislature that does not merely act as a rubber stamp for the executive branch of government.

[Hillpig]

not sure which bit you are questioning but:

 

 

 

Was a reference to a previous poster stating that this affair was very damaging to Cameron and Clegg. My view is that, in the longer term, it probably isn't.

 

 

 

One of the quirks of the way this country operates is that the power to deploy the military essentially lies with the Prime Minister and the assumption has always been that Parliament would back him regardless. To some extent the loss of the vote in Parliament has undermined that assumption. Clearly, in cases where the security of the realm is definitly at risk then the Prime Minister would have to act immediately and in those cases Parliament should back him. Currently, that sort of situation seems unlikely, but that hasn't always been the case and might again be the case in the future. What has been blocked or at least seriously delayed is the ability of the Prime Minister to engage in a military adventure which might be quite justifiable but isn't a response to a direct threat.

 

This is a good thing for two reasons, the first is that military action is rarely the right answer. In some cases it is, but mostly it isn't. In the specific case of Syria, it seems that military action isn't the right answer despite the horrific actions being perpetrated by all the sides.

 

The second reason is more general, in that it shifts some power away from the executive arm of the government back to the legislature. Over the last 30-40 years the legislature has lost much of it's ability to hold the executive to account and anything which redresses that imbalance is to be applauded and encouraged.

 

I agree with most of the above, my point is not the rights and wrongs of the issue, it is the actions of Milliband in seeking to gain political advantage in a situation where party politics should be put aside. People are dying, he could and should have had the integrity to do the right thing. He did not, and in doing so has done the nation, the people of Syria a great dis service. I hope he and the bunch of crooks he leads (front bench) lives to rue the day he did it.

[Mecky]

I agree with most of the above, my point is not the rights and wrongs of the issue, it is the actions of Milliband in seeking to gain political advantage in a situation where party politics should be put aside. People are dying, he could and should have had the integrity to do the right thing. He did not, and in doing so has done the nation, the people of Syria a great dis service. I hope he and the bunch of crooks he leads (front bench) lives to rue the day he did it.

 

And what of the tories who voted against Cameron?

[Hillpig]

And what of the tories who voted against Cameron?

 

I assume they voted with regard to their conscience. It is not the fact he lost the vote, I am perfectly comfortable that he is the only PM that has ever allowed a vote to be taken. (Blair did it but only once the troops were deployed). It is the fact that before the debate he conceded points to Labour in an attempt to provide a joint position, including a further vote before any action took place. Milliband used the opportunity to try to gain political advantage. He and his cronies are a disgrace to their party and the country they have consigned Syria to its fate.

 

Do you as a loyal socialist and presumably a patriot, think that Attlee, Bevin, Bevan, Wilson or Callaghan would have endorsed such treachery?

[I1L2T3]

I assume they voted with regard to their conscience. It is not the fact he lost the vote, I am perfectly comfortable that he is the only PM that has ever allowed a vote to be taken. (Blair did it but only once the troops were deployed). It is the fact that before the debate he conceded points to Labour in an attempt to provide a joint position, including a further vote before any action took place. Milliband used the opportunity to try to gain political advantage. He and his cronies are a disgrace to their party and the country they have consigned Syria to its fate.

 

Do you as a loyal socialist and presumably a patriot, think that Attlee, Bevin, Bevan, Wilson or Callaghan would have endorsed such treachery?

 

Resigned Syria to its fate? The USA is going to attack anyway. Let them have blood on their hands. There is no need for us to do it any more. We've got too much to worry about at home.