Stop Press- Syria Update. Miliband spots the political gap.

Just as this morning we predicted he might, Labour leader Ed Miliband has spotted the possible big political gap to go for and sharply differentiate between the government and opposition's positions on a punitive strike on Syria . The very tempting possibilty of defeating David Cameron's belicose proposals in tomorow's Commons debate has loomed into his field of view. He must see the opportunity as just too good to miss, whatever he believes are the merits of the case. That's raw politics.

 He has had no qualms in doing this cartwheel or handbrake turn from his broadly supportive position position after 10 Downing Street put their hands around his shoulders and went through the evidence and allegedly moral arguments so far with him yesterday. Unless he accepts a bit of a fudge it is unlikely that his demands for more conclusive proof of who was responsible for the chemical attack can be met. There is therefore the real possibility of Labour voting against the government.

If Labour can now bring through the "no" lobby with them other unconvinced , questioning or firmly hostile MPs in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats and the fringe parties, they could  defeat the Prime Minister's motion. Until at least the 1960s,  democratic and parliamentary convention on an issue as major as this would have meant that the losing PM would respond with words along the lines of :" I will take my case to the country" and it would be game over. Parliament would have been dissolved and a new General Election would have taken place in the mercifully short minimum time of three weeks. The country would have pronounced its verdict and in the meantime no action would have been possible.

Such honourable and genuinely democratic action is now highly unlikely from any party. The convention has lapsed and been ignored more than once. A defeat would though leave the Prime Minister with a very public international and domestic black eye, particularly if, as seems likely, he has already done a Blair and guaranteed Britain's support for action to President Obama. Constitutionally he could still proceed. He is entitled to do that. The price though, especially if things went wrong and/or the punitive mission were not self contained or involved substantial civilian fatalities and damage, could be terminal to both Mr Cameron and his government.

And as we said earlier today, all Mr Cameron had to worry about a week ago was keeping his beach towel in place while he wriggled around publicly changing his swimming trunks. Maybe he will begin to wish he were back there by that rock. The majority of the electorate are back there already. Has nobody told him?

Flashman at the Charge.....

Only a week ago, in man -of -the people mode on a Cornish beach, our dear leader offered an unecessary and risky photo opportunity just yards from his rented accomodation by executing a change of beachwear while wrapped in a beach towel. The end of the long school holidays was coming into sight, there was a tinge of autumn about the early morning air and the real New Year when schools and parliament (behaviourally they have much in common) reassemble was nigh. "Oh God our help in ages past..." would soon be sung throughout the land.

Now, a week later that hymn seems even more appropriate. The local TV news continues its ever rolling stream of murders, rapes, burglaries and the rest as if all were normal. The national and international screens and pages though show dramatic and fast gathering dark clouds. Things have suddenly changed .There is real danger about, even if everyday life in Britain continues almost oblivious of it.  Many may not have noticed but Flashman has replaced beach man. We would have been safer if he hadn't.

The trigger to the American and British leaders' furrowed brows and outrage has been the murder of 400 Syrians in a chemical attack orchestrated seemingly by President Assad. Whether or not he is the guilty party has not yet been ascertained,- and may never be. On the face of it he has the least reason to use such weapons. He would be well aware that the US reaction in particular could see his residences and other places reduced to heaps of rubble. More likely would be their use by one of the assorted rebel factions in an attempt to discredit the regime. This though is the Levantine Middle East where bluff, double and triple bluff can all be part of the tapestry. It is always difficult to ascertain who is really up to what and where the intertwined or conflicting threads lead. British embassies have moved away from diplomacy towards trade and aid (the dreaded DFiD).  As spookery has at the same time moved away from human towards electronic activity, getting a three dimensional feel for what is going on out of sight is more difficult than it used to be. Having multiple layers of ears and eyes in the world's embassies, government offices and oppositions, down through to coffee shops, hosteries, meeting places where people meet ,talk and speculate right down to the very lowest levels of society was a very good recipe for getting real fixes on the realities . It minimised the risk of dangers of disinformation coming from all kinds of disparate groups and interests being wrongly accepted as the truth. Nothing beats being able to differentiate between the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

Death from a chemical attack is particularly unpleasant. For this reason the deployment of chemical weapons has become the boundary between so far "acceptable", even if grisly, deaths of 200,000 + people in Syria and 400 in this event. This red line was created by Obama and despite encouragment from Cameron he may well be regretting it. It will though be difficult to get himself off this uncomfortable hook now. It is understandable emotionally but not logically. A death is a death. Dying by being buried alive when a cruise missile hits the building you are in ,- as will almost certainly happen ,- is at least as awful and grim. We are prepared to do that in the name of morality. It being our missile makes it all different.

The UK's Flashman is seemingly on an adrenaline fuelled roll. He is leading the charge to the UN today seeking a mandate for military action. Most other nations are understandably and prudently silent. France, with its long standing interests and involvement in Syria, is said to be with us but where are they? The American military, once let off the leash is always up for a scrap. It avoids them being cut down in size and influence, so what is there for them not to like about a new "initiative"?

From the point of view of domestic politics, both Obama and Cameron are moving out onto an exposed limb with all this, and Cameron especially so. In the USA Obama may please the opposition Republicans far more than his own party. In the UK Cameron may not please anybody very much. Certainly straw polls show 60+% of the British population as not favouring yet another Middle East intervention. Two dismal ones have been enough. Out of step with many in his own party ,Clegg is likely to coat tail behind Cameron with a few mumbled caveats "Just the one strike" etc to give himself partial rear end coverage later. Ed Miliband is the man with the biggest dilemma,- and opportunity. If he were bold and brave he would come straight out with an "Absolutely No" to any proposal for military intervention. He would say that we have to wean the Middle East,- and other parts of the world,-off the notion that the UK or the west or anyone else will ride to the rescue once any conflict reaches a certain level of nastiness. (Even here we are selective. We have stood by and watched,- and continue to do so,- even worse things in Africa). Foreigners will never be thanked for their interventions, even when they go well. Close to home is France eternally grateful for British assistance in two World Wars? Miliband could establish clear water here between Labour and its rivals. Apart from ruthlesly elbowing his brother though, he has not so far shown himself to be a man of great courage. He may therefore fear the risk of being handed a white feather especially if the "initiative" went well more than he relishes the idea of being the man who said "No" all along if it goes badly. It's likely therefore that he will go along with the coalition in tomorrow's Commons debate and vote but hedge his position with a lot more rear end protection than Clegg does. Such is the stature of our politicians.

The notion of a single or short series of punitive strikes on Syria is absurd and dangerous. Agaqin, it presumes that our moral Tomahawk missiles are different from Syria's immoral chemicals although the results are just as nasty and on past performance just as random. Innocent people who simply want to get on with their lives in normal homes, villages, towns and cities rather than ruined wastelands which will cost years and billions to rebuild are likely to be killed in our display of moral outrage. Our leaders may feel good but will the newly bereived and the maimed or dispossessed who are the supposed beneficiaries?  We will have wiped clean our consciences. They will have paid the price. Does it all make any sense? Punitive missions to teach foreigners a lesson are a throwback to a long gone age.

There is no guarantee that this will be a one off event. What if Syria retaliates? It has substantial and well equipped armed forces. Air defence systems come courtesy of Russia. Unless these are destroyed  any Tornado or other invading aircraft may not to come back. Are we ready for that?  What if Syria fires a missile or several into Israel who then retaliates against Syria and one of its other suppliers, Iran? And then Iran................?  The potential nightmare is obvious and yet Cameron pontificates as if there were no question about it not all being over by the weekend and, allowing strife in Syria just to return to the normal higher, but morally acceptable, attrition rate courtesy of  AK47s, bombs, and routine murders by all sides. None of the contestants is likely to be remotely democratic or even pro-western. Life, strife and illiberalism will continue as before until there is some kind of a negotiated settlement or there is nobody left standing.

Why therefore are we, on this pleasant pre-autumnal afternoon, facing a possibly diabolical September and real New Year? Everyone, including David Cameron, was safer when he was just taking off his swimmers on a Cornish beach. At least then he was almost certainly wearing a hidden safety garment underneath it all then in case it all went wrong. Now he's not. That means we aren't either.