Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 4m MPs come round to UKIP's position on possible military action in Syria. Am pleased with tonight's result. http://fb.me/6tnTZYf6A
Reports that Adam Boulton, Dan Hodges and Tom Bradby are wearing black armbands seeing their man has just had his political credibility killed off....can anyone confirm this?
@DavidL Both Cameron and the UK will be diminished by this.
Maybe not. It never does much harm for other people to know they can't take your support for granted. Being taken for granted has caused us a lot of problems with the EU.
Jim Murphy on the World Tonight seemed totally mystified as to why parliament was supporting Assad gassing children, as well he might.
Oh well, if parliament is not fussed about the 80-year world ban on chemical warfare coming to a de facto end, so be it. The ban has been spectacularly successful - we may have failed on stopping many other nasty things, but that one has lasted unbelievably well, with just a few exceptions, until tonight.
Well done, Ed.
Over to you, Assad. You've got free rein now.
I don't think we can either praise or blame Ed, Richard.
We can't even use the Lib Dems as a scapegoat.
This one was lost by the Tory backbenchers.
No it wasn't. If Labour had supported their own position - everyone agrees their amendment was effectively identical to the government motion - the motion would have passed, despite the principled objections in both parties. What's more, Cameron had already accepted all the concerns, and built them in to the government motion.
This is pure, 100%, party politics by Ed Miliband, completely unconcerned with the consequences in terms of the message it sends out.
Fair enough.
Labour, but more importantly the victims, will have to live (or die) with it.
Good luck. They'll need it.
The coalition is in govt, it has a large majority. It, not the Labour Party , is responsible for passing its own policy. Labours job is to lead the opposition.
Well, an incredible evening which even I failed to predict. Will Dave resign? Certainly not. This will have about as much traction - probably less - than when Mrs T. lost the Sunday Trading vote in 1986.
Reports that Adam Boulton, Dan Hodges and Tom Bradby are wearing black armbands seeing their man has just had his political credibility killed off....can anyone confirm this?
It will be interesting to see how Dan Hodges spins this as a disaster for Ed Miliband -- loss of influence in the White House, perhaps?
Quincel - Cameron avoids an unpopular war which would have hit his poll rating, been seen though to have acted appropriately by going though parliament and the UN. Miliband shores up his leftflank but also looks to be playing politics with the national interest
Sorry, that's just clutching at straws.
The Tories have destroyed Cameron tonight - They have made him a lame duck Prime Minister of a Lame Duck Party.
That's why Gove has gone into meltdown in the Lobby. He know's the game's up.
He hasn't though, has he? America and France will still strike, the UK will have nothing to do with it, that's all. Assad is still in a terrible position.
Maybe, maybe not. Clearly the UK won't be involved, and that might well undermine Obama's will.
Difficult to be sure, but I'd say it's now odds-on that Assad will not be challenged, and that therefore the 80-year ban on chemical weapons will now disintegrate.
As I said earlier I went out for lunch with some chums and I was staggered at their response to this issue. Something on a scale I haven't seen for years. If the PM and Cabinet can't get sense of what people out there are thinking why don't they just ask me?
I am definitely no Cameron fan but I think all this talk of Cameron being crap because he lost this vote is just garbage.
The Tim's of this world will have you think that Blair was a great Prime Minister who did a wonderful thing by lying to us and to Parliament about WMDs in Iraq. They also have two other beliefs - one that intervention is a 'good thing' and two that Cameron is always, now matter what, crap.
In fact Cameron has made a point of doing exactly what Blair didn't do. He knew that if he wanted to carry the country into an attack on Syria he could not do it with a mislead parliament - particularly given the overwhelming view in the country. He therefore had to do his best to peruade parliament of his case and take the chance he would not be able to carry them.
He did that. He lost. That is democracy.
For me this evening was a great result. Hopefully it means that we will not now be sticking our noses and our missiles where they are not supposed to go. But I also figure that in the long run it was a good night for Cameron as a Statesman. He stayed true to his belief that he shoudl not 'do a Blair' and he has accepted the consequences.
Parliament was given the chance to speak by the Government and they took that opportunity to represent the views and interests of the country. We should be grateful that, unlike his predecessors, Cameron gave them the opportunity to do that.
Well, an incredible evening which even I failed to predict. Will Dave resign? Certainly not. This will have about as much traction - probably less - than when Mrs T. lost the Sunday Trading vote in 1986.
Has any previous Prime Minister lost a vote on going to war?
Quincel - Cameron avoids an unpopular war which would have hit his poll rating, been seen though to have acted appropriately by going though parliament and the UN. Miliband shores up his leftflank but also looks to be playing politics with the national interest
You dramatically overestimate how much attention the public pays to the party in opposition. The government's action is almost always the story, and this is no exception. And when the government loses in the parliament the story is never "Victory for democracy" it is always "Defeat for PM".
@DavidL Both Cameron and the UK will be diminished by this.
Maybe not. It never does much harm for other people to know they can't take your support for granted. Being taken for granted has caused us a lot of problems with the EU.
We have retired from our position as most reliable ally of the US. The strategic implications of this will be felt for a long time. As I said earlier we just don't want to play any more. I feel that way myself.
The government case was that firing missiles at Syria was going to prevent them from using chemical weapons again. How would that work exactly? It just did not make sense. What evidence was there that they would use them again? How much damage were we willing to do to make that a physical impossibility? How were we to determine when they had learnt their lesson? The whole argument was a nonsense and I am bewildered at clever men making it.
He hasn't though, has he? America and France will still strike, the UK will have nothing to do with it, that's all. Assad is still in a terrible position.
Maybe, maybe not. Clearly the UK won't be involved, and that might well undermine Obama's will.
Difficult to be sure, but I'd say it's now odds-on that Assad will not be challenged, and that therefore the 80-year ban on chemical weapons will now disintegrate.
I don't think that will happen. Tonight was probably a cathartic moment for the British parliament, a hangover from the Iraqi WMD debacle.
If America delays action and Assad uses chemical weapons again there will soon be another vote, and it will probably be won next time.
I just saw Angus Robertson on telly, looking gleeful. I bet some Labour MPS are gleeful too.. I hope party-politics weren't at play today. This Syria crisis is bigger than that.
Well, an incredible evening which even I failed to predict. Will Dave resign? Certainly not. This will have about as much traction - probably less - than when Mrs T. lost the Sunday Trading vote in 1986.
Has any previous Prime Minister lost a vote on going to war?
Probably not, but how many times have there been votes on going to war? We never used to vote on this.
Egypt is one of a limited number of countries known to have employed chemical weapons against its enemies since the end of the First World War. There is strong evidence that during their intervention in the North Yemen Civil War, Egyptian forces employed bombs and artillery shells filled with phosgene and mustard against the Royalist troops and civilians in North Yemen. There is relatively little reliable open-source information available concerning Egypt's chemical warfare (CW) programs after the 1970s. There is some evidence pointing to Egyptian cooperation on CW issues with Syria in the 1970s and to a lesser degree with Iraq in the 1980s. However, very little evidence exists to support claims of ongoing Egyptian offensive CW efforts after the late 1970s. Since the early 1980s Egypt has received training in defensive CW from the United States. Egypt maintains a substantial defensive CW capability and produces personal protective equipment and decontamination equipment for domestic use and export. Egypt acceded to the Geneva Protocol on December 6, 1928, but has remained outside the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), publicly asserting that it will not accede to the convention until questions regarding Israel's nuclear weapons are addressed. Since 2005 there have been a small number of contacts between the Egyptian government, or state-sponsored NGOs, and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Fox putting Miliband up to demonstrate British weakness and anti-US sentiment.
Won't be the last time.
Resorting to Fox News, Avery?
The good news just keeps on coming
Fox News is the obvious place to go to get immediate US reaction.
Apart from being the US's most influential news channel by a large margin, its connection with the Murdochs and Sky means it has a closer understanding of the UK than other channels.
And no it is not good news, Carl.
But all governments have to take good and bad news.
Getting the strategy right and being patient more often than not pays dividends.
2206: Former government minister, Labour's Andrew Adonis tweets: "Tonight maybe the most significant Commons defeat for a govt on a single issue since devolution went down in 1976. Ramifications huge."
2206: Former government minister, Labour's Andrew Adonis tweets: "Tonight maybe the most significant Commons defeat for a govt on a single issue since devolution went down in 1976. Ramifications huge."
Bigging up the defeat. Hyperbole rules.
Surely the most significant defeat was the no confidence motion in 1979.
DavidL - Rubbish, Congress is if anything even more opposed than Westminster, 100 Congessmen have signed a letter demanding Obama seeks their approval, Boehner and Harry Reid are sceptical to say the least and Obama has dithered on this from day one. It was Cameron pushing this, not Obama, and Obama will just use this as an excuse to delay action until after the G20 come out with some new sanction or something and then forget about it
Reports that Adam Boulton, Dan Hodges and Tom Bradby are wearing black armbands seeing their man has just had his political credibility killed off....can anyone confirm this?
It will be interesting to see how Dan Hodges spins this as a disaster for Ed Miliband -- loss of influence in the White House, perhaps?
In Dans world, this will be catastrophic for Miliband, an absolute storming win for Cameron and cements his view of a triple figure win for the Conservatives at the next election. That fact that he was banging the war drum louder than most will have sent him pepileptic when he heard the news of the vote lose for his political hero. But he will now use the next few hours to spin it Daves way in his next article.
Your analysis would be arguable if Cameron had lost because parliament had soberly assessed the pros and cons, and decided the issue on its merits.
But they didn't. The Labour Party decided to stuff that, and go for a particularly nasty and cheap party-political stunt.
Good luck Britain, if you end up with Labour in government again.
As with the boundary changes where you blame the Lib Dems you simply cannot understand that David Cameron does not understand nor command his own party.
Who cares about David Cameron tonight? Even on the most optimistic view, he's a passing figure, here for a few years, but the international consensus that chemical weapons are taboo has lasted, so far, the best part of a century, and is now at risk.
@DavidL Both Cameron and the UK will be diminished by this.
Maybe not. It never does much harm for other people to know they can't take your support for granted. Being taken for granted has caused us a lot of problems with the EU.
We have retired from our position as most reliable ally of the US. The strategic implications of this will be felt for a long time. As I said earlier we just don't want to play any more. I feel that way myself.
The government case was that firing missiles at Syria was going to prevent them from using chemical weapons again. How would that work exactly? It just did not make sense. What evidence was there that they would use them again? How much damage were we willing to do to make that a physical impossibility? How were we to determine when they had learnt their lesson? The whole argument was a nonsense and I am bewildered at clever men making it.
Being a reliable ally doesn't mean following blindly, effectively letting the other make your decisions for you.
I think it's a very good thing that Mr Cameron (or any PM) should be able to go into negotiations with the others at the table knowing he can't guarantee to deliver on any old rubbish.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Two Tory ministers, Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds, apparently missed the key Syria vote by mistake after not hearing division bell
A huge misjudgement from the government and Cameron in particular. It should never have come to this. How could our leaders be so deaf to public and Parliamentary opinion? It's simply stunning.
Gosh, that'll really devastate the Labour core vote. We've lost the support of Fox News! Gulp.
US adoration of Tony Blair for his support of George W. Bush accounted for a large part of your party's international credibility, Nick.
Brown chasing Obama around the UN kitchens less so.
When a foreign politician becomes a figure of fun at best or identified as opposed to US interests at worst, the pollution spreads internationally and will eventually end up corroding his or her domestic reputation.
I wouldn't want Murdoch in charge of my US profile if I was Ed. Unfortunately he is and Ed can do nothing about it.
I am definitely no Cameron fan but I think all this talk of Cameron being crap because he lost this vote is just garbage.
The Tim's of this world will have you think that Blair was a great Prime Minister who did a wonderful thing by lying to us and to Parliament about WMDs in Iraq. They also have two other beliefs - one that intervention is a 'good thing' and two that Cameron is always, now matter what, crap.
In fact Cameron has made a point of doing exactly what Blair didn't do. He knew that if he wanted to carry the country into an attack on Syria he could not do it with a mislead parliament - particularly given the overwhelming view in the country. He therefore had to do his best to peruade parliament of his case and take the chance he would not be able to carry them.
He did that. He lost. That is democracy.
For me this evening was a great result. Hopefully it means that we will not now be sticking our noses and our missiles where they are not supposed to go. But I also figure that in the long run it was a good night for Cameron as a Statesman. He stayed true to his belief that he shoudl not 'do a Blair' and he has accepted the consequences.
Parliament was given the chance to speak by the Government and they took that opportunity to represent the views and interests of the country. We should be grateful that, unlike his predecessors, Cameron gave them the opportunity to do that.
I still think he is a bad PM though :-)
Decent of Cameron to put his case and accept the decision of the House in my opinion. He shouldn't lose any credit
Isn't that why we have 650 MPs rather than a elected dictator?
2206: Former government minister, Labour's Andrew Adonis tweets: "Tonight maybe the most significant Commons defeat for a govt on a single issue since devolution went down in 1976. Ramifications huge."
Bigging up the defeat. Hyperbole rules.
Surely the most significant defeat was the no confidence motion in 1979.
Very electric atmosphere that night - I was interviewed by ITN but I don't think they used the footage.
Quincel - No Tory will defect to Labour because Cameron did not win a vote to go to war with Syria, had it passed he may have lost some votes to UKIP.
You forget the number of character voters and voter enthusiasm. Lots of voters don't read the manifestos and follow the policies, they vote for whoever they think is the most capable and competent party and leader (hence why best PM ratings matter). Cameron just took a big step back there. Additionally, lots of movement in polls isn't voters defecting, it's simply turnout and likelihood to vote moving. Tory voters on the fringes of deciding to vote are less likely to bother turning out for someone they perceive as weak.
However, if you want to talk about straight voter defections then let's talk about the traditionally Tory voters who are deciding if UKIP is their new home. Anyone wondering if the Tories have lost it as a party got a big shove towards UKIP tonight.
Now, this will likely be temporary in the main, but it isn't good or even neutral news for the government.
Fox putting Miliband up to demonstrate British weakness and anti-US sentiment.
Won't be the last time.
Resorting to Fox News, Avery?
The good news just keeps on coming
Fox News is the obvious place to go to get immediate US reaction.
Apart from being the US's most influential news channel by a large margin, its connection with the Murdochs and Sky means it has a closer understanding of the UK than other channels.
And no it is not good news, Carl.
But all governments have to take good and bad news.
Getting the strategy right and being patient more often than not pays dividends.
Avery, they are irrelevant. In fact in global terms this vote will only be relevant if it somehow provides a get out clause for everyone else.
What matters is tonights briefing. I pointed out last night exactly how the UK would be involved and the government can still provide cover for US actions. Our military significance in US plans however are zero and if the US do any operation solely the politicians way (as I fear) instead of the get results way then we needn't bother being involved. The only practical issue is that a number of US assets transit US airbases on UK soil but the C4 operations out of UK bases will continue anyway. They have plenty of other options for forward deployment however.
I doubt the popular vote will be affected and I doubt that Hague or Cameron will go. But clearly action in Syria seems a long way away - since Hammond et al's comments.
A huge misjudgement from the government and Cameron in particular. It should never have come to this. How could our leaders be so deaf to public and Parliamentary opinion? It's simply stunning.
That`s what happens when the media give him an easy ride.It leads to complacency.The Mail and The Times can control the headlines but they don`t control the MP`s.
Events over the next few days will determine the outcome of all this. Things could change quickly.
If there is another gas attack or clear evidence of Assad, there will be another vote. Britain may still go to war. Equally if evidence is inconclusive or air strikes fail. Britain may keep out.
Either way a democratic descision has been made today on the facts as they are now. No one need feels ashamed, no one has lost face, no one should resign. This would and could never happen in Syria.
No10 and anyone else should drop the partisan and personal attacks.
I just saw Angus Robertson on telly, looking gleeful. I bet some Labour MPS are gleeful too.. I hope party-politics weren't at play today. This Syria crisis is bigger than that.
Of course party politics were at play - they were the ONLY consideration.
Isn't that blindingly obvious - you only need to read this thread!!!!!!!!
I think Cameron, parliament, pollsters and phone-in radio shows all come out of this looking good.
Cameron looks decisive, brave, fair and principled (provided you ignore the POTUS puppet reality). Parliament is seen to actually work (provided you ignore the no-shows). Yougov provided clear intelligence on how the people feel and all the vox pops hammered the message home. I suspect a lot of people will be silently relieved by the way it's worked out.
Perhaps instead, some of our massive overseas aid budget could be diverted into researching better medical treatments for victims of chemical weapons.
I doubt the popular vote will be affected and I doubt that Hague or Cameron will go. But clearly action in Syria seems a long way away - since Hammond et al's comments.
Interesting that a White House spokesman has just answered a question about the HoC vote by saying that direct British participation in military action is not now likely but that "there will be many other ways in which the UK will be able to help".
2323: Dominic Casciani, BBC News Home Affairs Correspondent tweets US-UK special relationship based on sharing intelligence, unity on security and mutual strategic priorities. Now UK has broken step 2323: The wife of UK government minister Michael Gove, the journalist Sarah Vine, tweets: "I am SO angry about today's vote. No military action would have come out of it. It was simply about sending a signal. Cowardice." 2323: Green MP Caroline Lucas tweets: Well that was worth being recalled for! Parliamentary democracy at its best & 1st step to independent foreign policy #Syria #peoplepower.
Breaking step... Casciani should step back and think before he tweets such dross. As for Lucas, a long period of silence from that quarter is always welcome.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m Two Tory ministers, Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds, apparently missed the key Syria vote by mistake after not hearing division bell
And Cameron has made these tits ministers.....god help us.
A huge misjudgement from the government and Cameron in particular. It should never have come to this. How could our leaders be so deaf to public and Parliamentary opinion? It's simply stunning.
Cameron looks decisive, brave, fair and principled (provided you ignore the POTUS puppet reality).
Are you serious? Cameron is a lame duck. He is finished. His party doesn't trust him to discharge his duty to defend Britain's national interest in a matter of war and peace.
Short of losing a Queens Speech or a budget there is nothing that could have happened that would have been more damaging to Cameron's authority.
Comments
MPs come round to UKIP's position on possible military action in Syria. Am pleased with tonight's result. http://fb.me/6tnTZYf6A
Won't be the last time.
Both Cameron and the UK will be diminished by this.
Maybe not. It never does much harm for other people to know they can't take your support for granted. Being taken for granted has caused us a lot of problems with the EU.
Perhaps Dave should have gone to Cleethorpes with Cousin Seth.
He might have picked up on what the public feel on this issue - as many of his backbench MPs have done.
And BTW remember who wanted to be 'Heir to Blair' and his corrosive residual poison ?
If the UN inspectors are able to report that Assad was definitely responsible that might be enough to swing things, or if he uses them again.
The Tories have destroyed Cameron tonight - They have made him a lame duck Prime Minister of a Lame Duck Party.
That's why Gove has gone into meltdown in the Lobby. He know's the game's up.
Difficult to be sure, but I'd say it's now odds-on that Assad will not be challenged, and that therefore the 80-year ban on chemical weapons will now disintegrate.
Harry Hayfield @HarryHayfield 11m
708 #Bowness on #SLakeland #LibDem 431 (61% -4%), #Con 248 (35% +5%), #Lab 29 (4% -1%). #LibDem HOLD on a swing of 4.5% from #LibDem to #Con
I do not give a fuck what this means for Miliband and Cameron. It's the message it sends to Assad that counts. I am ashamed."
https://mobile.twitter.com/DAaronovitch/tweets
One very long odds one that I placed a while ago is looking better tonight though...
The only thing the public will remember is we didn't take military action. Full stop. End of.
They'll be pleased about that and it will shift precisely zero votes in any direction between the 3 main parties.
The Tim's of this world will have you think that Blair was a great Prime Minister who did a wonderful thing by lying to us and to Parliament about WMDs in Iraq. They also have two other beliefs - one that intervention is a 'good thing' and two that Cameron is always, now matter what, crap.
In fact Cameron has made a point of doing exactly what Blair didn't do. He knew that if he wanted to carry the country into an attack on Syria he could not do it with a mislead parliament - particularly given the overwhelming view in the country. He therefore had to do his best to peruade parliament of his case and take the chance he would not be able to carry them.
He did that. He lost. That is democracy.
For me this evening was a great result. Hopefully it means that we will not now be sticking our noses and our missiles where they are not supposed to go. But I also figure that in the long run it was a good night for Cameron as a Statesman. He stayed true to his belief that he shoudl not 'do a Blair' and he has accepted the consequences.
Parliament was given the chance to speak by the Government and they took that opportunity to represent the views and interests of the country. We should be grateful that, unlike his predecessors, Cameron gave them the opportunity to do that.
I still think he is a bad PM though :-)
Britain has just lost a lot of international influence and US support.
But at least the blame is (probably wrongly) being placed at Miliband's door.
The good news just keeps on coming
"Fox are having a real go at Miliband and Labour"
That'll worry them.
Hugo Dixon @Hugodixon
Cameron's self-inflicted wounds have also damaged UK relationship with US. How silly.
The government case was that firing missiles at Syria was going to prevent them from using chemical weapons again. How would that work exactly? It just did not make sense. What evidence was there that they would use them again? How much damage were we willing to do to make that a physical impossibility? How were we to determine when they had learnt their lesson? The whole argument was a nonsense and I am bewildered at clever men making it.
If America delays action and Assad uses chemical weapons again there will soon be another vote, and it will probably be won next time.
I just saw Angus Robertson on telly, looking gleeful. I bet some Labour MPS are gleeful too.. I hope party-politics weren't at play today. This Syria crisis is bigger than that.
Richard, that's the other side of the coin from the silly saying "Something Must be Done, This Is Something ..."
The HoL has to be reformed, that was a reform, why didn't they vote for it? Because it wasn't a good reform, so we were told.
Apart from being the US's most influential news channel by a large margin, its connection with the Murdochs and Sky means it has a closer understanding of the UK than other channels.
And no it is not good news, Carl.
But all governments have to take good and bad news.
Getting the strategy right and being patient more often than not pays dividends.
Your analysis would be arguable if Cameron had lost because parliament had soberly assessed the pros and cons, and decided the issue on its merits.
But they didn't. The Labour Party decided to stuff that, and go for a particularly nasty and cheap party-political stunt.
Good luck Britain, if you end up with Labour in government again.
Bigging up the defeat. Hyperbole rules.
10) A single vote in the Commons has taken Cameron backwards to where he was at the start of the summer. Or further.
BBC reporting two Tory ministers failed to vote for the government tonight "by mistake"
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mark+urban&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#hl=en&q=allegra+stratton&safe=off
David Jack @DJack_Journo
https://twitter.com/DJack_Journo/status/373202799003066368/photo/1
This could get serious for Cameron.
I think it's a very good thing that Mr Cameron (or any PM) should be able to go into negotiations with the others at the table knowing he can't guarantee to deliver on any old rubbish.
Proportions of The Tory rebels as newbies or veteran non-Cameron fans will be interesting.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 3m
Two Tory ministers, Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds, apparently missed the key Syria vote by mistake after not hearing division bell
Brown chasing Obama around the UN kitchens less so.
When a foreign politician becomes a figure of fun at best or identified as opposed to US interests at worst, the pollution spreads internationally and will eventually end up corroding his or her domestic reputation.
I wouldn't want Murdoch in charge of my US profile if I was Ed. Unfortunately he is and Ed can do nothing about it.
Isn't that why we have 650 MPs rather than a elected dictator?
All Ed was say let's not rush.
However, if you want to talk about straight voter defections then let's talk about the traditionally Tory voters who are deciding if UKIP is their new home. Anyone wondering if the Tories have lost it as a party got a big shove towards UKIP tonight.
Now, this will likely be temporary in the main, but it isn't good or even neutral news for the government.
What matters is tonights briefing. I pointed out last night exactly how the UK would be involved and the government can still provide cover for US actions. Our military significance in US plans however are zero and if the US do any operation solely the politicians way (as I fear) instead of the get results way then we needn't bother being involved. The only practical issue is that a number of US assets transit US airbases on UK soil but the C4 operations out of UK bases will continue anyway. They have plenty of other options for forward deployment however.
Cameron's totally f__kd, his authority shot away to buggery and he knows it.
He'll have to go. Perhaps he can take that stupid tit Gove with him.
If there is another gas attack or clear evidence of Assad, there will be another vote. Britain may still go to war.
Equally if evidence is inconclusive or air strikes fail. Britain may keep out.
Either way a democratic descision has been made today on the facts as they are now. No one need feels ashamed, no one has lost face, no one should resign. This would and could never happen in Syria.
No10 and anyone else should drop the partisan and personal attacks.
Isn't that blindingly obvious - you only need to read this thread!!!!!!!!
Cameron looks decisive, brave, fair and principled (provided you ignore the POTUS puppet reality). Parliament is seen to actually work (provided you ignore the no-shows). Yougov provided clear intelligence on how the people feel and all the vox pops hammered the message home. I suspect a lot of people will be silently relieved by the way it's worked out.
Perhaps instead, some of our massive overseas aid budget could be diverted into researching better medical treatments for victims of chemical weapons.
2323: The wife of UK government minister Michael Gove, the journalist Sarah Vine, tweets: "I am SO angry about today's vote. No military action would have come out of it. It was simply about sending a signal. Cowardice."
2323: Green MP Caroline Lucas tweets: Well that was worth being recalled for! Parliamentary democracy at its best & 1st step to independent foreign policy #Syria #peoplepower.
Breaking step... Casciani should step back and think before he tweets such dross. As for Lucas, a long period of silence from that quarter is always welcome.
Because Boy Assad doesn't look the part.
Saddam looked the part.
Bin Laden looked the part.
Galtieri looked the part.
But Boy Assad looks like a weedy little nerd.
A bit like EdM really.
And like EdM he's beaten Cameron today.
It may be more if some Labour MPs voted in favour.
Short of losing a Queens Speech or a budget there is nothing that could have happened that would have been more damaging to Cameron's authority.
I'm going for, funny.