Ed Miliband continues to take flak re Syria
A couple of days ago David Aaronovitch had a go at Ed Miliband in "The Times" as I reported in this blog: he was then criticised by John Rentoul. And Nick Cohen has let Miliband have both barrels in the Observer with an article called "Don't look to Ed Miliband for moral leadership."
I've been quoting various other people's positions about Syria without stating my own here so let's come off the fence.
I think it has pretty well been proved beyond reasonable doubt that someone murdered fourteen hundred innocent Syrian civilians including women and children with a nerve gas, probably Sarin. It looks extremely probable that the Assad regime were responsible.
Subject to making the maximum effort to get at the truth and get as close to having proof before taking action, I think it is highly desirable that the international community takes effective action to ensure that the perpetrators of this atrocity do not benefit from it.
A unanimous response from the United Nations, whether military or non-military, would be ideal, but we have to be honest, unless there is a complete U-turn by both Russia and China, a united UN response is just not going to happen. Which means we have to look to what steps the West can take.
I can see both sides of the argument about whether this response should be military. (I have no time at all for those who don't want to do anything about it.)
On balance I would have voted for the British government motion which was voted down a week ago and which included a lot of caveats about getting proof before acting, which were specifically inserted to meet concerns raised by the Labour party.
However I can respect the views of those who consistently opposed military action on the basis that they dont' think it iss the best way to actually help the situation.
Like David Aaronovitch, while I can respect those who have sincerely and consistently supported either side in the debate I have far less time for those who appear to have been playing games with this vote and been more concerned about protecting their political position than doing the right thing for Britain or the victims in Syria.
David Aaronovitch's critique of Ed Miliband was because this is what he thought the Labour leader appeared to have been doing and because DA was completely unable to detect any sign of what Labour actually stood for on the issue.
Nick Cohen's criticism is because he thinks it is hypocritical for someone who has in the past made a point of the fact that he had a grandparent who died in the holocaust, and therefore had a personal stake in opposing fascism, to fail to come up with an effective response when another group of innocent people are murdered using poison gas.
I've been quoting various other people's positions about Syria without stating my own here so let's come off the fence.
I think it has pretty well been proved beyond reasonable doubt that someone murdered fourteen hundred innocent Syrian civilians including women and children with a nerve gas, probably Sarin. It looks extremely probable that the Assad regime were responsible.
Subject to making the maximum effort to get at the truth and get as close to having proof before taking action, I think it is highly desirable that the international community takes effective action to ensure that the perpetrators of this atrocity do not benefit from it.
A unanimous response from the United Nations, whether military or non-military, would be ideal, but we have to be honest, unless there is a complete U-turn by both Russia and China, a united UN response is just not going to happen. Which means we have to look to what steps the West can take.
I can see both sides of the argument about whether this response should be military. (I have no time at all for those who don't want to do anything about it.)
On balance I would have voted for the British government motion which was voted down a week ago and which included a lot of caveats about getting proof before acting, which were specifically inserted to meet concerns raised by the Labour party.
However I can respect the views of those who consistently opposed military action on the basis that they dont' think it iss the best way to actually help the situation.
Like David Aaronovitch, while I can respect those who have sincerely and consistently supported either side in the debate I have far less time for those who appear to have been playing games with this vote and been more concerned about protecting their political position than doing the right thing for Britain or the victims in Syria.
David Aaronovitch's critique of Ed Miliband was because this is what he thought the Labour leader appeared to have been doing and because DA was completely unable to detect any sign of what Labour actually stood for on the issue.
Nick Cohen's criticism is because he thinks it is hypocritical for someone who has in the past made a point of the fact that he had a grandparent who died in the holocaust, and therefore had a personal stake in opposing fascism, to fail to come up with an effective response when another group of innocent people are murdered using poison gas.
Comments
However the main point of this comment was really to ask this.
It has been reported that social media sites, and e-mail have made it much easier and people much more likely to write to their MP and thus more people do make their feelings known about votes on these important issues. Do you think its starting to dawn on politicians that going against your constituents is going to do you more harm than going against your political party whips?