Cameron And Hammond???

[Farriercm]

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, says air strikes against Syria, will not take place says he . But Cameron makes a statement ,saying air strikes might take place ,Do Tories talk to each other, or just not listen????

[Jomlett]

David Cameron has overruled the foreign secretary Philip Hammond after he appeared to rule out UK involvement in air strikes against Islamic State forces in Syria.

Hammond made his remarks at a press conference in Berlin, but Cameron's spokesman later said that as far as the use of British air power was concerned Cameron had not ruled anything out. The spokesman said he was clarifying Hammond's remarks, insisting the foreign secretary was referring to the possibility of air strikes against President Assad!

[ToraToraTora]

ah farrier, I have missed your highly informed and intellegent commentary welcome back.

[Svejk]

have another go, farrier. you're sure to hit on something right one day.

[Farriercm]

Sorry Forgot to mention, Hammond was in Germany, when he made this statement, he must have forgotten to inform Dave. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool ,than open mouth and prove it. PLEASE Take note SVEJK ,This applies to you also.

[Farriercm]

Correct spelling TTT is Intelligent, do try and improve your spelling, and not show your lack of Education. It would be so nice to have an Intelligent conversation with you .

[jno]

the answer appears to be no, Hammond seems to have made foreign policy on the hoof and Cameron has had to squash him in a hurry.

I trust our political leaders talked to each other a bit more in WW2.

[ichkeria]

At any rate I hope they were both watching Newsnight last night and the hysterical madwoman from the Syrian government: it should concentrate minds if it were needed (hopefully not)

[ToraToraTora]

attack the typo not the content, well done genius.

[naomi24]

^With grammatical errors to boot. How funny. ;o)

[Farriercm]

Now Now you girls, Behave yourselves, you will be pulling each others hair next ,calm down, try reading a Maggie Thatcher fairy story.

[naomi24]

Farrier, we're referring to your post at 18:55 Thu 11th Sep. ;o)

[ToraToraTora]

you see mate if you are going to pick holes in spelling and grammar, you'd better be pretty sure of your own. Sadly in this case you are throwing stones from your glass house. It is better to attack the content rather than demonstrate you have no argument by attacking the irrelevant ancillaries.

[jno]

Farriercm posts a perfectly valid point about the PM and Foreign Secretary apparently disagreeing in public over a vital foreign policy - and yet some ABers refuse to address the issue, resorting to ad hominem comment instead. How unexpected!

[naomi24]

jno, since I haven’t commented on the subject matter, I'm guessing your cynicism is aimed at me, and if so, I would point out that you appear to have somehow conveniently overlooked the original ad hominem comment here. As you say, “how unexpected!” As far as the OP goes – what’s to say? The situation in the middle east has changed, and the Prime Minister has corrected his Foreign Secretary’s statement. End of story.

[jno]

not just you, naomi. And Farrier's point was that PMs shouldn't need to correct ministers' statements, these things should be worked out beforehand, not in public, at least if they wish to give the impression of joined-up government.

The "original" ad hominem comment - which you have conveniently overlooked - did not come from Farriercm.

[ToraToraTora]

the problem is jno, that this particular poster just posts anti tory bile, even if occasionally, by mistake he asks a sensible question, he's like the boy who cried wolf and gets no credibility. This may be one of the rare occasions where the question is valid but past bilge has forsaken any sensible response.

[naomi24]

jno, I was referring to the original ad hominem comment that resulted in my joining this thread.

My comment on David Cameron correcting Hammond’s statement simply reflects Farrier’s view, which, like all his political opinions, is intended solely to disparage the Conservatives, and unless one possesses the will and the energy there is no point in wasting time contradicting him. He provided no link to support his OP, as usual, but if you actually look, there is rather more to the story than appears at face value. A spokesman said that Cameron was clarifying Hammond’s remarks, "insisting the foreign secretary was referring to the possibility of air strikes against Bashar al-Assad." Whether that’s accurate or not, I don’t know, and neither do I know whether Hammond simply spoke out of turn, but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he is ignorant of government policy, as Farrier, and you, have done.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/uk-rules-out-air-strikes-isis-syria