The UK political party's conference season is under way.

Yes, the Party hats are out again, and the bars of some of Britain's resort town hotels can hear the cash registers ringing way into the early hours and the occasional bed spring or two is in for a bit of illicit pounding "for the sake of the Party".

What's happening?

Our MPs have been back from their summer hols for a couple of weeks and enjoying getting back to the cheapo catering and liquid refreshment subsidised by the grateful public. This little session is always a bit of a false dawn though as it's only slipped in to occupy their time between putting the kids back in school and bunking off again for a further month for the party conference season.

This jolly annual romp starts off with the Trade Unions having their ritual rant on behalf of much hyped downtrodden masses against anything other than full time firing-proof full time employment . That is the sort of employment most likely to appeal to union fans. Not for them the evils of flexible working, zero hours contracts and all those sorts of things which have opened the way to new jobs and opportunities which employers can afford to create. Not for them either is any form of economy-strengthening restraint on wages or public sector spending. Why after all should they be interested in a more prosperous society. Happier, less disgruntled people are bad for unions and their quest for power in politics and over peoples' lives. Not good at all. Appropriately enough the scowling brothers and sisters, or comrades as many still call themselves out of reverence for glorious old heroes like Joe (Stalin) and similar pillars of liberal free thinking democracy, gathered in Bournemouth for their snarlfest ,the UK's best known resort for the elderly. It's famous for its sedate tea dances and must be more comfortable than the good old real working class northern resort of Blackpool. No deprivation or discomforts on the south coast for the well heeled leadership and maybe less well heeled delegates. Plenty in Blackpool.Upsetting place. Better not to go there.  Anyway, that's over now. Nobody can remember much about what transpired there but at least it was briefy good for end of season hotel occupancy.


The Green Party, led by Sydney-born Natalie Bennett whom likes to talk about "our" NHS as a glittering success not to be interfered with by the rapacious private sector even if they might do some good to the high cost and inconsistently performing monopololistic monolith. They gathered in Brighton which will have minimised evil emisions-generating travel although at least the 50 mile line to the city from London  is electric. Whatever went on at the gathering we hope that someone was listening. Whatever was said got drowned out in the media by things Syrian.


Next up are the LibDems,currently in Glasgow to show pre independence referendum solidarity with Scotland . Dear old Vince Cable hasn't quite got the message about displays of unity either with the tories who he clearly dislikes or his own leader but he has at least been prevailed upon not to miss significant sessions or votes. Otherwise , including the beareded and sandled ones, they are displaying their wares , wringing their hands (That is what they do )and preparing for a second term of junior membership of a coalition government in 2015. Like Vince, few  of them care much for their existing partners but to his credit their leader, Nick Clegg is doing his best to herd the cats away from the red-is-best cliff edge.  For the Tories being in bed with this outfit is like having your own inbuilt opposition out to hobble you before the people on the benches opposite get their chance. Given even the slimmest of majorities neither of the major parties would touch the LibDems, leaving them instead to resume their preferred role of a mildly irritating protest group best largely ignored. Their agenda appears to be to support things the majors mainly don't, -eg uncontrolled immigration, not kicking out known unpleasant people and that sort of thing. This may not get them to where they want to be,- holders of the balance of power and an essential coalition partner to one or other of the majors.

Once the LibDems have done their talking and socialising and enjoyed some liberal evenings on the way,  New-Old Labour takes its place on stage. They too are heading for the delights of Brighton, just down the line from Westminster. Here Red Ed ,fresh from recent failed duplicity over the Commons' Syrian vote needs to make his mark after a lacklustre, or lack anything much , summer.  His move to curb some of the excesses of union power over the party is far more courageous than he is given credit for. The status quo under which the unions by virtue of a fiction which gives them 50% of the voting power of "Conference" and dominance over the MPs and the constituencies in the leadership elections has to be changed if the party is to have any credibility as being in any way truly democratic. Blair, for all his bluster, did not take the issue on and nor did Brown who almost certainly saw little objectionable in how things were. Ed Miliband should have driven the change immediately after the 2012 election. Leaving it until now has weakened his hand , not least as there is little time to organise alternative funding for the party ahead of the May 2015 election. Already increasingly seen as weak and easily portrayable as being afraid to take the paymaster unions on, if he backs off now he will be condemned as gutless. If he pushes on he may well bancrupt the party unless there is quick agreement on the unpopular idea of state funding for all the political parties. He is truly between a rock (and not a stick of the Brighton stuff though he should be wary of any union official with any of that in their hand) and a hard place.

The grand finale, if not the peak, of the season then follows when the Conservative Party meets in Manchester, thereby demonstrating either its deep affinity with the industrial north west or that it knows where there's brass or that someone has told its leaders that at least they need to be seen far to the north of the M25. David Cameron is, despite the toff image and Labour's oft shouted "out of touch" epithet continuing to limit his popular appeal still ahead of the other two leaders in the "Who makes the best Prime Minister " polls. "None of the above" probably leads the verdicts but he does at least come out as least  unpopular. Clegg is seen as simply rather limp wristed and Miliband as a London geek. For the Tories the 2015 electoral mathematics are problematical. Their coalition non-partners, the Lib Dems  have in a hissy fit  prevented the correction of the constituency sizes which , all things being equal, means that they have to work far harder to secure an overall majority than does Labour. Their new challenge this time around will come from having UKIP out on their right flank and potentially taking away their more right wing and anti-EU voters. The Conference task therefore will be to keep the latter on board while not frightening off those who may see the less robust stances of the LibDems more to their liking. They will probably come away saying that both wings are well catered for but the electorate may be less convinced.

In short this is the kickoff of the 2015 General Election campaign. There is no party or leader with a big or inspiring vision of a glorious or even much better future to set the contest alight. The shades are only of grey and far from exciting. Reading the book of that name will probably give more fun. The least bad or at best the least objectionable candidate and party, whoever that is,  may win,-and even then they may be compelled to do a coalition deal with a setup which this time around has shown itself to be a less than collegiate and helpful partner. The ball is in play . All need to up their game, get out of policy minutiae and jump higher for the prize.

Syria- The world rocks on.

Politics' sudden explosion into life after a quiet summer and even sillier than usual media silly season continues,- and with it the unfortunate high risk of further explosions in Syria, followed by nobody knows what.

There are two threads here. First the philosophical one of what happens if the leaders of the world's leading democracies are constrained in their defence of the democratic ideal by....democracy. This happened in the Commons debate on Britain joining in a punitive military strike on Syria. It may well happen in the Congressional response on Tuesday to Obama's proposal. What if their answer on behalf of the American people is a also a "No" and the President doesn't override it? Or if he does go ahead, he is successfully impeached later, something that would in reality hobble Presidential freedom of action in the future? We would have the position where the dictators and grossly unpleasant governments of world would have nothing to fear from continuing to behave badly and oppressively and in doing so threaten the peace and good governance of others. How then is freedom defended and how and when could there be intervention to say "Enough is enough"? There are occasions when only force can avoid the continuation or extension of tyranny, but given the reluctance of most democratic electorates to go along with military action how do we ever get to use it before the invasion fleet sets sail across the Channel?

That is the big issue ,- and it is a huge one.

Secondly there is the immediate question of Syria. Obama is straining at the leash to punish someone for the chemical attacks and the resultant 1,400 deaths. Cameron was before he accepted being handcuffed by the Commons reflecting remarkably accurately the feelings of the British people of "This isn't one for us" ,heightened by a lack of clarity about what the desired outcome really was/is.

Obama, surprisingly for a relatively pacifist Democrat, is now out on a limb and may see himself as having to loose off a salvo or several just to avoid being seen as weak. This, meaning action for action's sake, is a dangerous postion for him to be in and isn't healthy for anyone else either.

The proposed attack seems to have grown from being one by a few carefully selected cruise missiles to a much bigger one involving a selection of aircraft including even veteran B52s, a weapons delivery system not known for its pinpoint accurancy. The objective appears to be to try to destroy as much of Assad's military capabilty as possible so as to level the playing field and give a host of disparate and desparate rebel groups a better chance of a rather shambolic and certainly brutal victory.  Nobody has any idea of who may eventually come out on top and how or what might follow. Any notions of "moderate" or "liberal" rebels riding in and setting up a Westminster style debating chamber in which the negotiate and settle their differences are pure fantasy. As in Iraq, nasty as the Assad dynasty may have been to some ,regime change of itself is likely to see more dead Syrians than if the status quo had continued. Also as in Iraq, let's not forget that the Ba'ath regime has been secular and that minorities, including Christians, have been protected and lived in peace. That's not going to be the case in any post Assad scenario.

At this stage there is absolutley no clarity about anything if or when the Assad regime is toppled. Nobody, including Obama and Cameron, has declared what the desired future state is or how it might be achieved. All that is on offer is the killing of more Syrians to avenge the loss and manner of death of the 1,400 killed in the chemical attack. It may well be impossible to prove who actually did deploy the chemicals. Although there is a reasonable presumption that government forces were to blame, it isn't proven whether these were mainstream of renegade on a frolic of their own or alternatively whether a rebel group used a conventional attack (which certainly did happen at the time) as a cover for releasing gas in a limited area. Against that background we are not even sure who we are punishing . The only certainty is that, whoever was responsible, we are making life easier for the rebel groups in general.

Are there any definate or near definate outcomes we can see from a) Obama's punitive strike and b) its aftermath? Well yes, there are....

a) From the strike:

- A lot of Syrians will be killed. Most likely that will include non combatants, women and children. Does that help anyone?
- If manned aircraft are deployed, Syria's Russian-supplied defence systems may ensure that they don't all return to base. This isn't a turkey shoot like Libya.
-A once working infrastructure will be further degraded, its eventual reconstruction leaving an economic drag on growth which reduce the funds available for creating a long term more prosperous and more stable society.

b) From the aftermath/regime change.

- The current Middle Eastern ( and sometimes our own) view of democracy is that winner takes all. hence in Egypt, Morsi felt he could run off with the Islamacist ball despite the slimmest of majorities. A military coup followed. Back to square minus a few. Didn't we do well in suppporting/encouraging the Arab Spring?
-The results of winner takes all will include the losers being hit hard/killed . This is one incentive for Assad and his supporters to keep peddling. If they lose they can't look forward to living to a ripe old age in homes for the elderly.
-Assuming Assad loses, that will be the end of the secular state.
-Minorities stuck in the middle will be crushed.  Goodbye Christians.

That, in a nutshell or two, is where the world is now and where it will head if Obama presses the "GO" button this week. Beyond these few things , nobody knows where "action" will lead, who will react and how and where that in turn will lead. There is no defined end point or even a vision of one. It's all very interesting but very dangerous. It seems along time since a fortnight ago when the biggest risk of  the day was Cameron changing his trunks on a Cornish beach.

Fog around Syria.

The pre-weekend confusion has given way to a weekend of pundits and politicians going around in ever decreasing circles trying to find angles, horrors and all the things that make good stories. Despite a lot of hype, few are being successful.

Many are tediously looking for "What this means for Cameron", or "What this means for Miliband" rather than what the rather confused scene now means to the Syrians, global politics and what happens next. Domestic political advantage is sought above all else. Did Miliband land a killer blow (almost by mistake) by his duplicity or has he made himself a pressure plate landmine? Probably neither. Politics move on fast and all this, like Syria itself if we are not careful, will soon be buried in sand, only of course to be tediously dragged up again for the next General Election's "Yah Boo,- Yes you did" ,"No I didn't" sessions.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic, Obama, seemingly poised and ready to press the start button, turned the safety key by backing off and refering the "Go, no go" question to a highly unpredictable Congress who, unlike the British Parliament recalled early, do not return from their hols until next week. Surely the possibility of the US missiles being joined by one or two from France wasn't that bad a deterrent?  Maybe he did think Cameron had adopted a game changing recipe good for democracy or maybe he just wanted more time to see what the UN investigators and anyone else had actually found out about the chain of command which unleashed the chemical attack in Syria. It would be very embarrasssing if it were found to be a renegade army group without Assad's backing, however unlikely that may seem.

A week or so from now Obama will have Congress's verdict. Like Cameron, that does not stop him going ahead with a punitive attack if he decides to do so. At the moment the odds look as if he just might. Certainly Kerry's rhetoric would point that way.

Restoring some kind of sanity to the whole issue is essential. Throwing more weapons about, blowing up more people, buildings and infrastructure only means more recriminations and expensive reconstruction later. Bombing a country backwards in time makes no sense. Long term peace requires prosperity not poverty. It needs fully functioning villages, towns, cities and states. Bombing the place back to where it was years ago is counter productive and socially and politically dangerous. Syria's plea today to the UN for protection against western aggression is understandable even if it is read as purely tactical. It asks the UN a question it is unlikely to want or be able to answer: "Whose side are you on?" With Russia, China. Syria and Iran in one corner and the rest of the world spread around several others a unified response looks impossible. If Assad were to convene a meeting of the warring parties that would be a very smart move and take the wind out of the "Bomb them" sails. On past performance, he is unlikely to see such a move as necessary in a world where political power means winner takes all. It takes a very well entrenched democratic tradition to move on from that notion to the idea that the winner also has a duty to look after all its constituents rather than just the winning faction. After all, we've been in the democracy business for a few hundred years but can't yet claim unfailing and consistent success in this field.

The more one probes into the murky and complex depths of the Syrian crisis, the less clear cut are any of the issues or solutions. Rhetoric, emotional moralising, and militant stances have led us to where we are,- and that is currently a sea of confusion.

More to come..................