Stumbling Ed Miliband has a Westland moment A second problem were the growing rumblings of discontent from the Labour Left: Diane Abbott was threatening to resign over the issue (though her colleagues believe this was merely an excuse to spend more time with her London mayoral ambitions). Miliband, weakened by a summer of discontent, felt he needed to placate the malcontents. But there is a more significant reason why Labour's leader opted to withdraw his support for the Government's motion. Backing it would have meant making a decision. And making decisions isn't what Ed Miliband does. Over the past few years, many commentators have expressed concern about the growth of what is known in Westminster circles as "Adviser Culture." That is the process by which the former advisers of senior politicians ultimately take the place of their bosses. Miliband represents the apotheosis of "Adviser Culture." He approaches any issue in precisely the same way he did when working for his mentor, Gordon Brown: he assesses problems, identifies solutions, then presents them for discussion and debate. He's very good it. What he cannot grasp is that as leader of a major political party, it's no longer enough to put forward a suite of options; he has to select one. You could see this in the Commons. Miliband wasn't speaking to the chamber, but trying to brief it. He seemed perplexed when Sir Malcolm Rifkind asked what his own position on military intervention actually was. People needed time to consider all the options, he said. Why would anyone seriously want to take a decision now? He may as well have added, "Or tomorrow. Or ever. It's an approach he believes serves him well. Present him with any major issue, and he will attempt to manoeuvre himself so he is equidistant from each competing perspective. He believes in a welfare cap, but not in actually cutting anyone's welfare. He believes in sticking to George Osborne's spending limits, except for those projects where he thinks spending more money would help. Yesterday he tried to explain how he believes in intervening in Syria, but not in too much intervention. And not yet. He believed he could again get away with kicking the can down the road. But you cannot get away with that trick when the can is in fact a canister of nerve gas. Miliband's performance over Syria has been a disgrace. Set aside the games he has been playing with Downing Street, first offering support for the Prime Minister's position, then withdrawing it. This is an issue of war and of peace. There is a strong case for supporting intervention. There is also a case for opposing it. But there can be no excuse for having no coherent stance at all. Yesterday, Miliband must have been on his feet for the best part of half an hour. And after all his stuttering and dissembling and obfuscating, I'm still none the wiser whether he backs military action in Syria. Neither, for that matter, is his own shadow cabinet. "I thought he was basically in favour of action," said one member. But now I don't really know what he thinks. Now we will never know whether Ed Miliband would have finally backed military action against the Assad regime. But in the same way that 1986 speech defined Neil Kinnock's leadership, I have a feeling yesterday we saw the speech that may have defined Ed Miliband's.