Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
On what looked like being a very bad day for the inept Miliband, it ends in humiliation for the PM.
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.
Gove has just cooked his own goose in the leadership election when Cameron goes. Calling fellow Tory MP's traitors in a high pitched squeal across the Lobby will have gone down like a lead balloon.
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.
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 agree fully that direct British military support is not needed by the US.
And the logistics support (similar to that supplied to us by the US during the Falklands War) will likely continue.
But Obama and the US does benefit from the UK's political support. The special relationship meant that we were expected by Washington to be part of the "coalition of the willing".
It does look as though Obama is planning to go ahead with intervention in Syria, What the UK backing out does is makes it easier for the US to bypass the UNSC and will allow the Pentagon to redefine the quantum of proportionality. We can now expect Syria to be hit much harder than would have been the case if the action had been sancitoned through the UNSC, which has always been seen by the Americans as a quaint British requirement.
anotherrichard - Assad is basically an eye doctor who trained at King's College London who by accident of birth ended up president of Syria, he is the least worst option they have (and basically looks if anything like a Syrian SPAD, much the equivalent of Cameron and Red Ed)
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.
Rubbish. Cameron lost because he failed to convince enough MPs of all parties to support him.
Now personally I think this was always bound to happen in the post-Blair era but still credit Cameron with making the case and putting it to the vote.
People like Tim and some of the other Labour supporters on here are gleefully claiming that Cameron screwed up by holding the vote but that would imply they would rather have seen him commit us to war without gaining Parliamentary approval.
Cameron did the right thing in seeking Parliamentary consent but his case was always going to be very hard to make and personally I am very glad he lost.
If anything my respect for him goes up slightly (but only very slightly) because he did the right thing.
I think we need a General Election tbh. To be defeated on a matter of such importance is bad. Ed Miliband doesn't exactly come up smelling of roses, but the defeat for the Gov't means it surely does not have the confidence of the house now.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
If he was arrogant surely he would have just used the Prerogative powers at his disposal? Yes, he may have thought he could have got it, but he didn't, and he accepted that result. And as a consequence, we won't be involved in any coalition against Assad. That doesn't sound arrogant to me.
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
Well to be fair he probably didn't think his party would destroy it's leader/Prime Minister as they have done done tonight....
the agreed August media-led 'story' about Miliband has been a big part of what happened today. The media have consistently underestimated Miliband since he became leader, so politicians have too.
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
tim
What price is Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?
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.
Why is it stunning?Cameron behaved properly, maybe not good politics, but properly. Blair would be at war by now, Cameron could of, but he didn't. He recalled Parliament due to the recent extension of chemical weapons use in Syria. It is clearly something he feels strongly about, he couldn't convince enough MPs to agree with him, simply because of Iraq, if Iraq had not happened he would have won the vote. He gave parliament the opportunity to express its will, and will now follow the will. That to me is a dramatic improvement on Blair. They have reached a decision I do not agree with, but i respect that people have different opinions than me. What is stunning is that we finally have a PM who respects parliament and does not lie or mislead it.
Im watching BBC news now with more videos of gas attacks in Syria, this will get worse, public opinion may change.
Quincel - Disagree, unlike Blair Cameron looks like listening to the people and not going to war, Miliband has pissed off other world leaders and looked anything but PM material
Domestically I don't think this will change much at all. Internationally, though, Cameron has been significantly diminished. And that means the UK has been too. That's why this is not a night for any kind of triumphalism from those who opposed the government's strategy. The right decision has been made, but at a heavy cost. It should never have got to this stage; but Cameron got it wrong.
The question is why on earth the whips and Cameron didn't remember. It's not as if that wasn't a huge flashing DANGER signal that any vote on Syrian intervention would be extremely controversial for many on his own side.
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
tim
What price is Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?
Young is not quoted. Maybe Shadsy knows something.
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.
Brilliantly put - I think you're the only person talking sense on this thread. Too many people here tonight don't seem to understand the distinction between the democratic process and partisan politics. Or maybe they just don't believe there is one?
I've never been against our intervention in Iraq, if you look at the likely counterfactual Iraq could well have been worse. What I was against was the sexing up that the Blair Gov't used to get us there. The vital trust in Gov't and Intelligence on such matters was shot by Blair at that point. And it is those who are going to be shot, beaten and bombed by the Assad regime who will suffer because of this.
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.
Calm down GIN!
You are indulging your long established tendency to over-react!
The toxicity of the last Labour Government's Iraq legacy lives on. Meantime terrorists run amok in Syria as the civil war rages on, the Assad regime there not only possesses chemical weapons, but its also now using them on its own people. I hope that you have a strong stomach along with that gloating tone tonight, and that this decision tonight doesn't come back to haunt us at a future date. Our Parliament didn't just sit on its hands tonight thanks to the party that took us into Iraq and Afghanistan, it made a very public declaration that it was going to turn its face away from the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people. I hope that Ed Miliband realises the enormity of what he did yesterday, I wouldn't trust Miliband to run a bath right now, never mind step up to the plate and run the country.
The question is why on earth the whips and Cameron didn't remember. It's not as if that wasn't a huge flashing DANGER signal that any vote on Syrian intervention would be extremely controversial for many on his own side.
Did we actually arm the rebels (can't be arsed to look it up sorry!). If we did that is an utter disgrace, they may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still most certainly evil.
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
tim
What price isn't Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?
Young is not quoted. Maybe Shadsy knows something.
The Chief Whip is part of the cabinet, just attends, that's why he's not listed
Quincel - Disagree, unlike Blair Cameron looks like listening to the people and not going to war, Miliband has pissed off other world leaders and looked anything but PM material
Well, the beauty of politics is that the polls will tell us who is right over the next few months. The annoying thing is that politics is sufficiently complex for both of us to take victory from almost any polling, but that's life.
Rubbish. Cameron lost because he failed to convince enough MPs of all parties to support him.
Not really. He lost because he failed to convince enough Conservative and LibDem MPs, acting on their consciences, to overcome the block vote of Labour acting for cheap party advantage.
The proof? Those same Labour MPs voted for the near-identical Labour amendment. Therefore there is absolutely no possibility that they were acting on principle.
Fair enough. If Labour MPs feel that cheap party advantage trumps grave matters of international importance, that's up to them, and to voters, who will get what they vote for in 2015.
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
Well to be fair he probably didn't think his party would destroy it's leader/Prime Minister as they have done done tonight....
I appreciate you are one of the more excitable posters on this site (your contributions during the London riots were a marvel to behold and that's not a compliment), but can we get one thing clear. Cameron is not going to resign nor will he be forced from office.
That the vote is embarrassing and a blow is self-evident....and depressingly reinforces the views of most sensible Conservatives that it is the actions of miserable, self-serving and self-indulgent nonentities among the backbenchers that could presage defeat in 2015.
Toby Harnden @tobyharnden Disastrous for Cameron: gung-ho from outset, ramped up rhetoric, over-promised US, said no vote needed, held vote on tepid motion, lost it
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it. Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
Well to be fair he probably didn't think his party would destroy it's leader/Prime Minister as they have done done tonight....
A big chunk of his party have never forgiven him for not winning a majority against Brown and losing the boundary changes, they think he's an amateur and he in turn regards them with contempt.
Even so, the polling suggest's he is (was) the best hope the Tories have (had) of retaining power. How much does (did) he lead the Toxic Tories by in his personal ratings?
What the Conservative Party has done to it's leader tonight is quite extraordinary and when push came to shove I don't think many people could have foreseen this.
Domestically I don't think this will change much at all. Internationally, though, Cameron has been significantly diminished. And that means the UK has been too. That's why this is not a night for any kind of triumphalism from those who opposed the government's strategy. The right decision has been made, but at a heavy cost. It should never have got to this stage; but Cameron got it wrong.
If you can get Fox News turn on now for discussion of impact of British vote.
Current head is positioning it as a defeat for Obama. "Even the US's oldest ally is deserting him."
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.
Brilliantly put - I think you're the only person talking sense on this thread. Too many people here tonight don't seem to understand the distinction between the democratic process and partisan politics. Or maybe they just don't believe there is one?
I've not criticised Cameron or the Government, just said I thought it was a good day for Parliament.
Rubbish. Cameron lost because he failed to convince enough MPs of all parties to support him.
Not really. He lost because he failed to convince enough Conservative and LibDem MPs, acting on their consciences, to overcome the block vote of Labour acting for cheap party advantage.
The proof? Those same Labour MPs voted for the near-identical Labour amendment. Therefore there is absolutely no possibility that they were acting on principle.
Fair enough. If Labour MPs feel that cheap party advantage trumps grave matters of international importance, that's up to them, and to voters, who will get what they vote for in 2015.
If it was near identical why did the government and its supporters oppose it?
So say NATO invokes something to provide support to one of its members, purely as a defensive measure, what then? Maybe a. RAF Sentry up there, keeping an eye on the sky?
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.
Calm down GIN!
You are indulging your long established tendency to over-react!
Well let's put it this way, I was virtually certain to vote Conservative in 2015 up until 10pm this evening - But now I'm virtually certain not to while Cameron is still leading the Tory Party.
Reason being the Tory Party have said to me they don't trust their leader/Prime Minister to be acting in the national interest in the gravest, most serious of all decisions, that of war and peace.
The question is why on earth the whips and Cameron didn't remember. It's not as if that wasn't a huge flashing DANGER signal that any vote on Syrian intervention would be extremely controversial for many on his own side.
Did we actually arm the rebels (can't be arsed to look it up sorry!). If we did that is an utter disgrace, they may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still most certainly evil.
Nope. Again there simply wasn't the support for that. Nor was that anywhere near the first time a huge number of tory MPs went public opposing Cameron on various issues. This has dogged his leadership since at least the first European referendum commons vote where, curiously enough, it was also 81 tory MPs defying him.
EU referendum: Rebels lose vote in Commons
David Cameron has defeated a bid to grant a referendum on EU membership, despite the largest rebellion against a Tory prime minister over Europe.
The motion was defeated by 483 votes to 111, after all Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MPs had been instructed to oppose it.
In total 81 Tories are known to have defied the whips, while others abstained.
Will we look back on tonight as Cameron's equivalent of Brown bottling the election that never was or Major's ERM exit or Wilson's IMF bailout etc etc ?
Can only find two defence related (in a wide sense) defeats in the interwar period, nothing like this:
7th April 1924 Amendment to Ways and Means Resolution to exclude the charge on supplies of milk from the charges for which it is expedient to give legal validity for. (The charges had been imposed by Defence Regulations during the Great War)
1st April 1941 Motion for a Prayer to annul an order made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts 1939 and 1940. The order allowed theatres and music-halls to open on Sunday. [The government allowed a free vote but strongly urged that the prayer be rejected]
Will we look back on tonight as Cameron's equivalent of Brown bottling the election that never was or Major's ERM exit or Wilson's IMF bailout etc etc ?
It is worse than that, IMO.
Eden and Suez might be more apt and we know what happened to him...
GIN1138, I am serious. Clearly the average man in the street did not want to get involved. But it's no bad thing to have a Prime Minister who is up for it, puts it to a vote, and argues passionately on such a serious point of principle. People like strong, decisvie leaders and I think they'll respect him for that even if they don't want to get involved.
OK, so he didn't carry his party, but that's not fatal on an issue like this. MPs listened to the people. So everything worked out well for the moment. Calling him a lame duck, as if he's now got no authority, is I think an exaggeration. Many of those who voted against, will, like the general public, still respect his opinion and authority on other matters.
AndyJS - He won't, Obama is the weakest FP president since Carter and Congress is already demanding a vote which he too will probably lose. No, Assad has got away with it. (Though luckily for us I doubt he actually authorised it but some underling and he won't let it happen again, Assad is just as spineless as Miliband and Obama!)
Will we look back on tonight as Cameron's equivalent of Brown bottling the election that never was or Major's ERM exit or Wilson's IMF bailout etc etc ?
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.
GIN1138, I am serious. Clearly the average man in the street did not want to get involved. But it's no bad thing to have a Prime Minister who is up for it, puts it to a vote, and argues passionately on such a serious point of principle. People like strong, decisvie leaders and I think they'll respect him for that even if they don't want to get involved.
OK, so he didn't carry his party, but that's not fatal on an issue like this. MPs listened to the people. So everything worked out well for the moment. Calling him a lame duck, as if he's now got no authority, is I think an exaggeration. Many of those who voted against, will, like the general public, still respect his opinion and authority on other matters.
In theory I agree with you, in practise I think it is still very strongly the convention in the UK for the government not to bring any votes they don't intent to win.
David Amess Richard Bacon Steve Baker John Baron Andrew Bingham Crispin Blunt Fiona Bruce Tracey Crouch David Davies Philip Davies David Davis Nick De Bois Richard Drax Gordon Henderson Philip Hollobone Adam Holloway Philip Lee Julian Lewis Tim Loughton
Gordon Birtwistle Paul Burstow Mike Crockart Andrew George Mike Hancock Julian Huppert
I was virtually certain to vote Conservative in 2015 up until...
That's the way every second comment on ConservativeHome has started for the last few years. You start to get jaded about its accuracy when reading it for the hundred-thousandth time.
GIN1138, I am serious. Clearly the average man in the street did not want to get involved. But it's no bad thing to have a Prime Minister who is up for it, puts it to a vote, and argues passionately on such a serious point of principle. People like strong, decisvie leaders and I think they'll respect him for that even if they don't want to get involved.
OK, so he didn't carry his party, but that's not fatal on an issue like this. MPs listened to the people. So everything worked out well for the moment. Calling him a lame duck, as if he's now got no authority, is I think an exaggeration. Many of those who voted against, will, like the general public, still respect his opinion and authority on other matters.
In theory I agree with you, in practise I think it is still very strongly the convention in the UK for the government not to bring any votes they don't intent to win.
Particularly when it's about the most gravest of issues, that of war...
This isn't some local difficulty over schools or europe. This one is as serious as it get's.
The question is why on earth the whips and Cameron didn't remember. It's not as if that wasn't a huge flashing DANGER signal that any vote on Syrian intervention would be extremely controversial for many on his own side.
Did we actually arm the rebels (can't be arsed to look it up sorry!). If we did that is an utter disgrace, they may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still most certainly evil.
iirc we just got the ban on arming them lifted. I think the US are arming and training a bunch in Jordan and then there's the Saudis supplying some of the dodgier groups with who knows what.
Roger I highly doubt French polls show any enthusiasm for support, Hollande is equally spineless and will do nothing now, the whole coalition for action was pushed by Cameron, the UK wrote the resolution, now any prospect of action has collapsed
Will we look back on tonight as Cameron's equivalent of Brown bottling the election that never was or Major's ERM exit or Wilson's IMF bailout etc etc ?
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.
How ?
Someone said if any more chemical attack takes place, it will be on Parliaments' conscience.
Even if USA attacks and France this time takes the poodle spot ?
The Americans and the Assad regime have got the message, thanks Ed:
2237: Well, just what are the implications of Parliament's rejection of the the US position? According to the Times: "President Obama cannot launch a military strike against Syria without British support, military and intelligence experts in the US said last night.
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
Meanwhile, back in Syria, the Wall Street Journal's Middle East correspondent Sam Dagher tweets: "#Damascus tonight: in Mezzeh got stuck in pro regime rally, people honking horns, waving #Syria flags & singing '#Assad millions love you'."
Will we look back on tonight as Cameron's equivalent of Brown bottling the election that never was or Major's ERM exit or Wilson's IMF bailout etc etc ?
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.
Hugo Dixon @Hugodixon 3m Cameron's global authority now almost NIL. How can Putin take him seriously again? Worst day in his premiership.
Like it or not Cameron is a busted flush, squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling.
I have been saying it for ages,all 3 main political leaders are pi$$ poor,that includes your leader miliband.
Will we look back on tonight as Cameron's equivalent of Brown bottling the election that never was or Major's ERM exit or Wilson's IMF bailout etc etc ?
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.
Hugo Dixon @Hugodixon 3m Cameron's global authority now almost NIL. How can Putin take him seriously again? Worst day in his premiership.
Like it or not Cameron is a busted flush, squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling.
It's not very often I say this, but I agree with Tim. :^O
Once the UN inspectors report comes out, and its unlikely to be as clear cut as "Assad did it", if it looks like he did, could Cameron not schedule a further debate?
Once the UN inspectors report comes out, and its unlikely to be as clear cut as "Assad did it", if it looks like he did, could Cameron not schedule a further debate?
David Amess Richard Bacon Steve Baker John Baron Andrew Bingham Crispin Blunt Fiona Bruce Tracey Crouch David Davies Philip Davies David Davis Nick De Bois Richard Drax Gordon Henderson Philip Hollobone Adam Holloway Philip Lee Julian Lewis Tim Loughton Jason McCartney Stephen McPartland Nigel Mills Anne Marie Morris Andrew Percy Richard Shepherd Peter Tapsell Andrew Turner Martin Vickers Charles Walker Sarah Wollaston
Gordon Birtwistle Paul Burstow Mike Crockart Andrew George (Mike Hancock) Julian Huppert Dan Rogerson Andrew Stunnell Ian Swales Sarah Teather (David Ward) Roger Williams
The White House has basically said the UK's position doesn't matter and they pretty much had that statement out in minutes after the votes and in the hours before.
What matters way more is the briefing tonight to senior Congressional figures.
If it was near identical why did the government and its supporters oppose it?
Because it was clearly a wrecking amendment.
With all due respect, that is a silly question.
If it was practically identical how could it have wrecked anything?
What you may come to terms with at some stage is that for what it believed was in the national interest Labour opposed the government's approach and suggested another one, which may well have ended with the UK participating in some kind of military action against the Assad regime.
Labour will gain little party advantage from tonight's events; but it may have been advantageous to EdM to have been seen to have helped frame UK policy towards Syria. Perhaps that's why the government - obsessed as it is with the weak, weak, weak meme - chose to oppose what Labour set out.
Or perhaps there were just two conflicting, genuinely held views; neither of which Parliament supported.
Comments
And the logistics support (similar to that supplied to us by the US during the Falklands War) will likely continue.
But Obama and the US does benefit from the UK's political support. The special relationship meant that we were expected by Washington to be part of the "coalition of the willing".
It does look as though Obama is planning to go ahead with intervention in Syria, What the UK backing out does is makes it easier for the US to bypass the UNSC and will allow the Pentagon to redefine the quantum of proportionality. We can now expect Syria to be hit much harder than would have been the case if the action had been sancitoned through the UNSC, which has always been seen by the Americans as a quaint British requirement.
Gossip on Guido is much more serious than carrying a vote about military action.
Now personally I think this was always bound to happen in the post-Blair era but still credit Cameron with making the case and putting it to the vote.
People like Tim and some of the other Labour supporters on here are gleefully claiming that Cameron screwed up by holding the vote but that would imply they would rather have seen him commit us to war without gaining Parliamentary approval.
Cameron did the right thing in seeking Parliamentary consent but his case was always going to be very hard to make and personally I am very glad he lost.
If anything my respect for him goes up slightly (but only very slightly) because he did the right thing.
What price is Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?
Im watching BBC news now with more videos of gas attacks in Syria, this will get worse, public opinion may change.
Irrespective of one's political positioning, that is looking a seriously alarming prospect.
Memo to my Labour friends: Can't you ditch him and at least get Ed Balls, or even Yvette, in place instead?
Brilliantly put - I think you're the only person talking sense on this thread. Too many people here tonight don't seem to understand the distinction between the democratic process and partisan politics. Or maybe they just don't believe there is one?
You are indulging your long established tendency to over-react!
Did we actually arm the rebels (can't be arsed to look it up sorry!). If we did that is an utter disgrace, they may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still most certainly evil.
The proof? Those same Labour MPs voted for the near-identical Labour amendment. Therefore there is absolutely no possibility that they were acting on principle.
Fair enough. If Labour MPs feel that cheap party advantage trumps grave matters of international importance, that's up to them, and to voters, who will get what they vote for in 2015.
That the vote is embarrassing and a blow is self-evident....and depressingly reinforces the views of most sensible Conservatives that it is the actions of miserable, self-serving and self-indulgent nonentities among the backbenchers that could presage defeat in 2015.
What the Conservative Party has done to it's leader tonight is quite extraordinary and when push came to shove I don't think many people could have foreseen this.
This lists defeats since 1945, none directly defence. (The Gurkha motion involving personnel but not the same kettle of fish.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterWatt123/tweets
"I just hope that if the evidence is compelling (not conclusive) that the Americans take action. I feel slightly ashamed tonight.."
Current head is positioning it as a defeat for Obama. "Even the US's oldest ally is deserting him."
Carrington resigned because of Foreign Office failures.
Now whatever people think of the rights and wrongs of bombing Syria its not the Foreign Office or Foreign Secretary who have failed.
The failure is the government misreading of the views of the public and of their own backbench MPs.
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/defeatsc19.html
Reason being the Tory Party have said to me they don't trust their leader/Prime Minister to be acting in the national interest in the gravest, most serious of all decisions, that of war and peace.
My vote's gone for sure.
With all due respect, that is a silly question.
Ronnie Campbell
Jim Fitzpatrick
Sian James
Grahame Morris
Graham Stringer
Nope. Again there simply wasn't the support for that. Nor was that anywhere near the first time a huge number of tory MPs went public opposing Cameron on various issues. This has dogged his leadership since at least the first European referendum commons vote where, curiously enough, it was also 81 tory MPs defying him.
7th April 1924 Amendment to Ways and Means Resolution to exclude the charge on supplies of milk from the charges for which it is expedient to give legal validity for. (The charges had been imposed by Defence Regulations during the Great War)
1st April 1941 Motion for a Prayer to annul an order made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts 1939 and 1940. The order allowed theatres and music-halls to open on Sunday. [The government allowed a free vote but strongly urged that the prayer be rejected]
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/defeats.html
Eden and Suez might be more apt and we know what happened to him...
There are still political dangers for Labour, as "events" unfold of course.
But hey. Ed stopped the war.
Weak, huh?
OK, so he didn't carry his party, but that's not fatal on an issue like this. MPs listened to the people. So everything worked out well for the moment. Calling him a lame duck, as if he's now got no authority, is I think an exaggeration. Many of those who voted against, will, like the general public, still respect his opinion and authority on other matters.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/11/
'France: 75% tax rates and support for bombing Syria. Very strange situation."
Maybe they can get their exocets on HP?
Fairly decent rumours of regime official defections over last 24 hours. Who and at what level unclear.
Perhaps we could arrange for Brown, Blair and Cameron to be sent to Syria.
Once the light from their counternaces shines there it will all become sweetness and light.
David Amess
Richard Bacon
Steve Baker
John Baron
Andrew Bingham
Crispin Blunt
Fiona Bruce
Tracey Crouch
David Davies
Philip Davies
David Davis
Nick De Bois
Richard Drax
Gordon Henderson
Philip Hollobone
Adam Holloway
Philip Lee
Julian Lewis
Tim Loughton
Gordon Birtwistle
Paul Burstow
Mike Crockart
Andrew George
Mike Hancock
Julian Huppert
pdating...
So Labour said 'Don't be like we were with Iraq, when we were dreadful lying arseholes', and Cameron replied 'No no you weren't so bad'
Against the Labour amendment or for the government motion ?
This isn't some local difficulty over schools or europe. This one is as serious as it get's.
iirc we just got the ban on arming them lifted. I think the US are arming and training a bunch in Jordan and then there's the Saudis supplying some of the dodgier groups with who knows what.
Someone said if any more chemical attack takes place, it will be on Parliaments' conscience.
Even if USA attacks and France this time takes the poodle spot ?
2237: Well, just what are the implications of Parliament's rejection of the the US position? According to the Times: "President Obama cannot launch a military strike against Syria without British support, military and intelligence experts in the US said last night.
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
Meanwhile, back in Syria, the Wall Street Journal's Middle East correspondent Sam Dagher tweets: "#Damascus tonight: in Mezzeh got stuck in pro regime rally, people honking horns, waving #Syria flags & singing '#Assad millions love you'."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247
Jim Fitzpatrick voted against both, that I do know. So I assume rebels on the amendment.
Don't rejoice until you've thought through the consequences. They are not pretty.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/war-plan-foiled-now
Hancock's had the whip withdrawn, for the record, so he wasn't rebelling.
David Amess
Richard Bacon
Steve Baker
John Baron
Andrew Bingham
Crispin Blunt
Fiona Bruce
Tracey Crouch
David Davies
Philip Davies
David Davis
Nick De Bois
Richard Drax
Gordon Henderson
Philip Hollobone
Adam Holloway
Philip Lee
Julian Lewis
Tim Loughton
Jason McCartney
Stephen McPartland
Nigel Mills
Anne Marie Morris
Andrew Percy
Richard Shepherd
Peter Tapsell
Andrew Turner
Martin Vickers
Charles Walker
Sarah Wollaston
Gordon Birtwistle
Paul Burstow
Mike Crockart
Andrew George
(Mike Hancock)
Julian Huppert
Dan Rogerson
Andrew Stunnell
Ian Swales
Sarah Teather
(David Ward)
Roger Williams
The White House has basically said the UK's position doesn't matter and they pretty much had that statement out in minutes after the votes and in the hours before.
What matters way more is the briefing tonight to senior Congressional figures.
Bloody hell!
*checks betting"
It will be interesting to see how Argentina react to the HoC vote.
Maybe President Kirchner is preparing her task force now?
What you may come to terms with at some stage is that for what it believed was in the national interest Labour opposed the government's approach and suggested another one, which may well have ended with the UK participating in some kind of military action against the Assad regime.
Labour will gain little party advantage from tonight's events; but it may have been advantageous to EdM to have been seen to have helped frame UK policy towards Syria. Perhaps that's why the government - obsessed as it is with the weak, weak, weak meme - chose to oppose what Labour set out.
Or perhaps there were just two conflicting, genuinely held views; neither of which Parliament supported.