Is there an ounce of decency in the man?

DAVID CAMERON should have realised that if Ed Miliband was capable of betraying his brother, he would have very few qualms about doing the same to him. Miliband cannot be trusted and should be avoided at all times by political opponents from within and without his party.  When it comes to trust and forming alliances, Ed Miliband has only one priority - himself; and, as he has proven in the last 24 hours, if after the next election there is another coalition; it should not be shared with Miliband.      

            

            David Cameron met all of Miliband's demands in order to get his support in yesterday's debate. Miliband's behaviour has so angered Dan Hodges, a Blairite Telegraph blogger, that he has resigned his Labour Party membership. His reasons are worth showing in full, as there is no greater condemnation of Miliband's deceitful behaviour:

 'Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.

Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.

Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.

Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.

Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway.'

He concludes:

'Every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.
This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.'

             Dan Hodges was right to resign. If Ed Milliband had acted out of principle, and stated his case accordingly, at least people like Hodges would have understood. But Milliband was only acting in his own interest, and not even in that of his party's. Such low behaviour should not be considered prime ministerial. For let us think about those who were at the centre of this whole issue, but whom Miliband dismissed in order to varnish his own lacklustre performance over the summer.

            Last week the Assad regime used chemical weapons indiscriminately - for there is no other way such weapons can be used. The images that travelled the world following the attack, reminded one (and Miliband should take note) of Jews having been gassed by the Nazis. Those lines of bodies wrapped in linen ready for burial were not unlike images of countless Nazi victims piled high ready for the crematorium. But as was pointed out today, not even Hitler used  chemicals weapons on the battlefield.

            Such images should therefore have touched Miliband's conscience even deeper than the rest of us. But they did not. It was Miliband first and last. I doubt his brother David would have so easily brushed to one side such a horror for political preferment.

            After all, the Miliband family were originally refugees themselves, who fled persecution to find a home in the UK. Ed Miliband's academic father Ralph, then set about trying to destroy the democratic society that had embraced him by fighting to create a Marxist state to replace it. Another example, no doubt, of the opportunistic gene that seems to run through the family.

LUCKILY THE gene is not recessive, so David escaped its pernicious influence, and would have made a fine leader of the Labour Party, and an excellent prime minister but for the betrayal of his brother, who engaged in a Faustian pact with the trade unions, who had no love for his brother, or he for them.

            But Ed even turned on those who secured his leadership of the Labour Party in order to serve his ambition. He involved the police in the Falkirk shenanigans when Unite members were, without their knowledge, made members of the Falkirk constituency Labour Party, so the Unite union could use their votes to get their preferred candidate selected to represent the constituency in the next general election

            No good can come of Ed Miliband in politics, either for the Labour Party or the country; but the Labour Party will as always let their hearts rule their head, and, especially after what will be seen as an act of political astuteness by their leader; the party will want to keep him as their leader, as they did when Neil Kinnock stood up to Militant in the 1980s.

WETHER WE JOIN an international alliance with America or not; in purely military terms our support is not needed. But, because of the so-called 'special relationship', both politically and diplomatically, what Miliband has done may prove in the coming years and decades, to have been the pivotal moment that finally accelerated and ended the tortuous decline of our nation; and at 63, I am glad I will not be around to mourn its end.  

            I do not think that Ed Miliband has fully comprehended the damage he has done; for he has acted, as he has always done throughout his political life, to safe-guard and advance his own political ambition without any decent impulse toward his nation's interest.