The Conference Parties are over. Where are we now?

Yes, they are all over bar the Scottish Nationalists who trail behind, as they are likely to do in next years' bid for independence, or Uhuru as they might like to call it to give it a bit of a Commonwealth flavour (if they can stomach that). For any fans of party conferences who feel they have missed out this year, the SNP will meet in Perth for its annual grudgefest on 17-20 October. They will no doubt be delighted to see you,- provided that you are not one of  the evil English.

All the sessions went much as we predicted and bar the odd soundbite (and there were some odd ones) were highly forgetable. We may as well press the mental "delete" button and make space for other thoughts or memories. Almost anything else will do.

Passing over Nick and his gathering, Ed did his noteless stuff in Brighton, just down the track from Westminster, about as near as you can get without staying inside the M25. There was a spontaneous " Man-of-the-people-I'm not just a geek" session or two of hugging or snogging the wife and then a long learned by heart speech about us all being able to do better "than this". For those nodding off in the back rows those were probably the only words they heard before nodding (in agreement) off again until they heard the wake up words next time round (they had about 15 chances in case they missed any). With  clear body swerve to the left (McClusky's dog whistle was obviously working well) Ed came out about embracing socialism ("That's where we're going") and chose the wicked power companies as this year's bogeyman . They are to be felled by a blow of the price control axe once he is installed in Number 10 where all energy costs are met by the taxpayer. How he expects the six big energy suppliers to maintain their enthusiasm for the tens of billions of investment required to meet Britain's power needs and highly expensive greenification over the next 10 to 20 years is not clear. Maybe he will in due course explain to the nation in a candle lit broadcast with the hum of a portable generator prominent in the background. Actually he'd better do it on the radio as TV will probably have blacked out. Anyway, the message was "Follow me over here to the left" . There was barely a mention of defecit or the need to do anything about it. He was pretty much back to his master's voice, - that's Gordon Brown's- vowing to "invest" , by which he means of course to borrow and spend but for no particular purpose or gain.

All this doesn't stop Ed being the next Prime Minister. Cross yourselves, put your hands together, breathe in slowly and heavily, pour a stiff drink or do whatever you do in times of extreme stress now.  Thanks to the electoral maths, the Tories having scored an own goal in blocking the modicum of House of Lords reform demanded by the LibDems and the latter having churlishly responded by blocking parliamentray boundry changes worth 20 seats to the blues and the urban north being an almost Tory-free zone, Ed in number 10 is a definate possibility.  This version of Ed (Miliband unless Mr Balls elbows his way past him at the last moment) may well have to put up with an irritating alliance /coalition with Nick and his gang but that is something either of the main parties may have to accept. Nick himself doesn't much mind with which it is, just so long as he continues to draw his Number 2 salary and benefits. Labour would probably be harder on him though than the Tories have been although many LibDem MPs would feel themselves much more at home under the red bedspread than sort of under the current blue one.

Dave and his team chose to venture further from the M 25 comfort zone,- even beyond the Cotswolds which in a painful phone-in he revealed to be the home of bread making machines and artisan flour. That went down just great in the industrial streets of Bolton and the like.  As for in Scotland, let's just move on. So it was that the Tory festival pitched its camp in Manchester as a demonstration that it knows where it is and that it could manage a few days there without the place being burned down.  There were a few ill advised policy swerves or at least nods towards improving living standards via the socialist mechanism of market distorting government price controls but otherwise the message was essentially " Restoration of  the economy is long haul work in progress,- give us another 5 years in 2015". It echoed a slogan of 20 or more years ago "Life's better under the Conservatives,- Don't let Labour ruin it". It wasn't exactly a new theme.

Perhaps that's the real feeling coming out of all the party conferences. There was a "Back to the future" thread. Nothing really new, no exciting new thinking or visions, managerial rather than inspirational leadership styles, just choose which of the above bores or frightens you least. That makes for a pretty dull choice. The north will mainly say Ed, the south Dave and the largest number of the scattered remainder Nick. UKIP will do well in what are seen as the single issue May 2014 European Parliament elections but are likely to fade by 2015 although they could cost the Tories some crucial marginals. Scotland, ah Scotland. It was once the home of a good number of Conservative seats but that seems long ago. Even one seat is almost a miracle now. Tory mathematicians, or anyone who just understands sums, might think "If they could vote "Yes" to Uhuru and Westminster could be shot of their MPs by 2020 then the whole game changes in our favour". They should not allow this idea to delude them though. Both countries are enriched and strengthened by the union, even if the English do have to pay for/subsidise it. England the Brave.

The Great American Shutdown- A Trans-Atlantic Twiga's view.

Are you mystified as to what is going on in the USA ? The people who lost the Presidential Election appear to be trying to hold to ransome the people who did. In so doing they negate the idea of democracy (for which they originally fought hard) by bringing the state aparatus as close to a standstill as they can. Next up will be the powers to increase national borrowing needed to fund ongoing expenditure. Apart from undermining the country's status as a long term trusted borrower, these measures will risk putting many citizens out of work, stop their pay and social security cheques and thereby threaten their livelihoods and homes. That doesn't seem to make any kind of sense for any political party.

While on this side of the Atlantic we shake our heads ,Twiga's North American fellow long necked quadripede, Andrew Lloyd-Williams, throws some light on the dismal scene of short term politics at its worst.

He comments...

Under the shutdown all government departments are required to furlough all employees unless the department has alternative sources of funding or the employees are "exempt",- ie performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing other types of exceptional work (See http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf ).

Each department decides which employees are exempt so decisions will vary.Often the choice is a political one-furloughing more employees creates a bigger backlash against whoever is blamed for the shutdown. There are some useful details at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/union-faa-furloughs-airline-safety-inspectors-20427311 and at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-30/boeing-dreamliner-risks-certification-delay-on-shutdown.html.

It is only a matter of time before the shutdown causes a death. Then Congress will face being called murderers. It is clear already that if a vote were held the hiatus would be over. However the Tea Party extremists seem to have so much sway over the House Speaker, Republican John Boehner, that he won't allow a vote on a clean bill to bring the affair to an end. This has to be about as dumb as it gets. The Republican House members polled fewer votes than the Democrats in the 2012 elections and they only control the House because voting districts have been gerrymandered to create safe seats for Republicans,- and some Democrats as well. This not only results in Republican control of the House with fewer votes, but also means that those members in safe seats can be as stupid as they like without the risk of being voted out. (Not very different from some scenarios in the UK where its significance may be substantial after the 2015 election). This is how the Tea Party came to exist.

 The obstructors though are on a losing wicket. The number of moderate Republicans pushing for an end to the shutdown is growing and it is likely that they will be able to force a vote within a few days. Boehner can't hold out if he sees the Republican party disintegrating. Next up if the situation is unresolved, is the even bigger potential crisis,-the debt limit. If an increase isn't approved by around 17th October the US Government won't be able to pay its bills. The first move will probably be to start holding up things like Social Security cheques and the point would soon be reached where the government would default on bond holders. Then all hell would break loose .Interest rates would go through the roof , the defecit would balloon due to higher interest payments and everything the Republicans have been fighting for,- starting with lower defecits,-would be a pipe dream, a sure way of shooting themsleves in both feet ( Twiga comment,-As a separate and side issue, really shouldn't  they bring in some form of gun control even if just to avoid this possibility?)

There you have it. Watch this potentially self destructive space.

Meanwhile in another neck of the woods there must be joy in BP that a US court (the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans)  has ruled in favour of them not having to pay out on bogus or fraudulent claims for damage relating to the 2010  Gulf of Mexico oil spill. For some reason most people will have thought inexplicable,  the Administrator of the fund sent up to compensate those affected by the spill had previously though otherwise.

The USA at its best is a great country and does great things. Amongst other things it has given more people more opportunities than has any other nation on earth. At times though we have to shake the heads at the top of our long necks in mystification at its capability to do some rather extraordinary things which lead us again to hear the twin reports of a double barreled shotgun facing footwards.

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..................

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.