As much as this is clearly a colossal blow to Cameron's authority on the most serious of issues that certainly doesn't guarantee any automatic huge boost to labour in the polls or even the tories dropping catastrophically like after the omnishambles.
I really don't think it will do either.
Whether some of the papers call this a Bombnishambles or not, it's more likely to provoke relief from the public rather than huge changes in support or opposition to any of the parties.
The other thing to note is that, as much as this was a Cameron misjudgement, Clegg nailed himself quite firmly to Cameron's mast and his misjudgement of his own party and base is far more inexplicable and is also being repeated on a far more regular basis than even Cameron these days.
The party conferences for Clegg and Cameron will not be the happiest of ones now.
If Britain does end up involved, it'll be because Milliband says so, so pressure if the UN report does show 'compelling evidence' or if there are further attacks.
RichardNavabi - US opinion is equally opposed, this has got nothing to do with the special relationship, as had Congress voted on it it would almost certainly have opposed it too, what it does show is a rather gutless and weak response on the part of the West to Assad, who will now get a slap on the wrist at best. I never supported a full-scale intervention, but now it looks there will be virtually no action at all!
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.
Come off it, Southam, really.
For heaven's sake, we're grown ups here.
You might well be right that it won't actually work for party advantage, but to argue that they were trying to do anything other than play silly buggers is risible, absolutely risible.
Today has had a pretty calamitous impact on the international standing of the United Kingdom and the authority of the Prime Minister, but the sooner we appreciate that we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, the better.
Like it or not Cameron is a busted flush, squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling.
Quite possibly.
Don't rejoice until you've thought through the consequences. They are not pretty.
The consequences for Labour could be bad if the Tories replace him with Theresa May, UKIP would immediately drop and the Tory women problem (which is a Cameron personality issue to a large degree) would be diluted
I think Richard was thinking more of the consequences for thousands of people in Syria who could end up being gassed because of this shambles...
RichardNavabi - US opinion is equally opposed, this has got nothing to do with the special relationship, as had Congress voted on it it would almost certainly have opposed it too, what it does show is a rather gutless and weak response on the part of the West to Assad, who will now get a slap on the wrist at best. I never supported a full-scale intervention, but now it looks there will be virtually no action at all!
Yes, this has torpedoed it. I don't think Obama will act alone, or with France, and Assad can now call his bluff with impunity.
That's why I said the very successful 80-year ban on chemical weapons is now dead.
At the very least we should have pretended to wield a big stick, but now we - that's the Western world - won't.
Watching a programme about dinosaurs tonight. We know who the biggest dinosaur of the political world tonight is, It's egg laying Cammo; who laid the biggest political egg of his career.
UKIP, which led the "no to war in Syria campaign" is very satisfied that Cammo's plans were laid to nought by mostly back-bench tory MP's. There may be some interesting shifts of allignment soon. And no, I don't have any hard news on this.
UN orders its inspectors out of Syria in anticipation of strikes
US threats to launch air strikes within days trigger demand by Ban Ki-moon for early assessment of inspectors' findings
As the five permanent members of the security council held a second emergency meeting on Syria in two days on Thursday evening, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule.
The consequences for Labour could be bad if the Tories replace him with Theresa May, UKIP would immediately drop and the Tory women problem (which is a Cameron personality issue to a large degree) would be diluted
tim- it amazes me that you seriously think anyone believes your nonsense.
Do you seriously think anyone will think you are giving helpful advice to the Con party?
The reason for your endless posts is that you are terrified that Cameron is going to win and you know he is the Conservatives' best option.
RichardNavabi - US opinion is equally opposed, this has got nothing to do with the special relationship, as had Congress voted on it it would almost certainly have opposed it too, what it does show is a rather gutless and weak response on the part of the West to Assad, who will now get a slap on the wrist at best. I never supported a full-scale intervention, but now it looks there will be virtually no action at all!
Yes but.
Obama is being goaded into action in Syria by the Republicans.
And they are using the same "weak, weak, weak" line against Obama that is being used against Miliband in the UK.
Obama has the freedom to bypass Congress (and the UNSC) and enough political capital to ignore public opinion on military intervention. Americans may not support further military adventures in the Middle East but if it is ordered by the Commander-in-Chief the public rallies behind the troops.
On the scale of the intervention, wait for the Pentagon hawks to talk it up. The US military is committed to the doctrine of "if it is worth doing at all it has to be done properly".
With the decision against action in Syria are we seeing the continuation of a British popular trend to isolationism adding to a general rejection of things EU? Some have previously said we should be more like the Germans, which means boosting our industry, selling to folk we don't particularly like but as long as they have the money, participating in defence alliances but not being very assertive. Of course the Germans have benefited from the Euro so they are unlikely to want to leave but they have done well by working hard and minding their own business, literally.
UN orders its inspectors out of Syria in anticipation of strikes
US threats to launch air strikes within days trigger demand by Ban Ki-moon for early assessment of inspectors' findings
As the five permanent members of the security council held a second emergency meeting on Syria in two days on Thursday evening, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule.
RichardNavabi - US opinion is equally opposed, this has got nothing to do with the special relationship, as had Congress voted on it it would almost certainly have opposed it too, what it does show is a rather gutless and weak response on the part of the West to Assad, who will now get a slap on the wrist at best. I never supported a full-scale intervention, but now it looks there will be virtually no action at all!
Yes, this has torpedoed it. I don't think Obama will act alone, or with France, and Assad can now call his bluff with impunity.
That's why I said the very successful 80-year ban on chemical weapons is now dead.
At the very least we should have pretended to wield a big stick, but now we - that's the Western world - won't.
I suspect there's a lot of very nasty tyrants and regimes all over the world sitting up and watching this fiasco with great interest...
The consequences for Labour could be bad if the Tories replace him with Theresa May, UKIP would immediately drop and the Tory women problem (which is a Cameron personality issue to a large degree) would be diluted
tim- it amazes me that you seriously think anyone believes your nonsense.
Do you seriously think anyone will think you are giving helpful advice to the Con party?
The reason for your endless posts is that you are terrified that Cameron is going to win and you know he is the Conservatives' best option.
As illustrated by the current polls.
If still in doubt - ask Rod Crosby.
tim is a joke - a sick one I concede - but on the positive front, he's a modest but useful source of income to his betters.
Richard, do you not think Cameron bears some responsibility in that he should have, you know, tried a bit harder to convince Parliament and the country? Or at least talked to some of the people in his party to find out if they were going to support him on this?
MIliband not only putting the boot into the PM just now on the News Channel, but measuring up the curtains in No 10, talking like he's already in charge.
He's a conniving and opportunistic little sh1t, for sure, but you have to admire the chutzpah.
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.
Come off it, Southam, really.
For heaven's sake, we're grown ups here.
You might well be right that it won't actually work for party advantage, but to argue that they were trying to do anything other than play silly buggers is risible, absolutely risible.
I understand that you want this to be the case; but I'm afraid that does not make it so. Cameron misjudged his party and misjudged his ability to persuade MPs of his case. Labour took a different view to Cameron and the government, it's as simple as that. If Cameron had been able to persuade the nearly 100 backbench Tories and LDs who did not vote with him that would not have been a problem. But he couldn't. He miscalculated. And now both he and the UK are substantially diminished on the international stage; which is why it is not a night for any kind of triumphalism.
Yokel Of course it matters, as the comments by an official to the Times made clear, US public opinion and most of Congress is already opposed and Obama is a gutless ditherer on this, there is not a chance in hell of him launching military action on his own
The US won't do anything differently because Cameron couldn't deliver, that's a nonsense argument.
We'll see, but I suspect this finishes it.
2257: The White House has responded to the news across the Atlantic. Here's the statement in full: "We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the UK tonight. The US will continue to consult with the UK government - one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
That sounds awfully like victory for Assad, Putin, and Ed, no?
MIliband not only putting the boot into the PM just now on the News Channel, but measuring up the curtains in No 10, talking like he's already in charge.
He's a conniving and opportunistic little sh1t, for sure, but you have to admire the chutzpah.
He`s been called weak so many times by Cammy that he`s probably enjoying the moment.
Richard, do you not think Cameron bears some responsibility in that he should have, you know, tried a bit harder to convince Parliament and the country? Or at least talked to some of the people in his party to find out if they were going to support him on this?
Quite possibly. Of course he may have made the mistake (not for the first time) of believing others to be honourable.
But in the bigger picture, this is not about Cameron.
With the decision against action in Syria are we seeing the continuation of a British popular trend to isolationism adding to a general rejection of things EU? Some have previously said we should be more like the Germans, which means boosting our industry, selling to folk we don't particularly like but as long as they have the money, participating in defence alliances but not being very assertive. Of course the Germans have benefited from the Euro so they are unlikely to want to leave but they have done well by working hard and minding their own business, literally.
I don't see a big change here really Perdix.
Today was a mistake.
Miliband didn't intend it to end with a defeat for both motions. He will now be exposed (probably unfairly) by the finger of blame being pointed his way, He will just have to avoid trips to Washington for the rest of this parliament.
Cameron was not expecting defeat either. His and Hague's leadership in international forums is now diminished and the special relationship with the US has been set back.
I doubt even the MPs who voted against both motions expected a defeat.The reaction to the tellers approach to the clerks table was one of shocked amusement rather than triumph.
I even suspect that if the vote was held again immediately after the result was known the government would have got its majority.
But the Syrian Civil War has not ended and new atrocities will occur demanding of action from the international community.
What looks highly likely is a short term fall in the UN Security Council's influence. Russia and China have power through their vetoes but if the US is going to by-pass the Council then that power no longer exists.
Perhaps we shall see Putin and Lavrov courting Cameron and Hague now to try to pull the US back to the UNSC?
Avery LP WRONG John Boehner, who is the most powerful elected Republican at the moment as Speaker of the House, has demanded a Congressional vote and is very sceptical, Rand Paul, one of the leading candidates for 2016 is outright opposed. John McCain may be for, but he is largely yesterday's news in terms of the present GOP. Both Obama and Biden attacked Bush for going to war without Congress, Biden even said he should be impeached if he did it over Iran, neither will back action now.
The UN report is expected within days now. Ed may well have the compelling evidence he wanted. What's he going to say? Is he going to act effectively like the amendment had passed (giving two options - there has been no compelling evidence so I will not support a new government bill; there has so I will) or say categorically that no evidence will now be enough?
UN orders its inspectors out of Syria in anticipation of strikes
US threats to launch air strikes within days trigger demand by Ban Ki-moon for early assessment of inspectors' findings
As the five permanent members of the security council held a second emergency meeting on Syria in two days on Thursday evening, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule.
Am I missing something since they already said Saturday was the day they planned to leave??
Well are they ordering them out on Friday, instead?
Are they? As far as I can see they still finish on Friday and leave on Saturday but if there is breaking new developments then by all means correct me. If they have shifted it to Friday then that would be a pretty clear signal about imminent missile attacks.
If there's a battle going on in the US government - which i assume there is - then this vote will help the non-interveners but i doubt it's a 100% foregone conclusion who'll win.
Have they? AS far as I can see they still finish on Friday and leave on Saturday but if there is breaking new developments then by all means correct me.
I don't know, hence the question mark ;-) Too lazy to look it up right now!
Yglesias: "This British thing where the parliament needs to vote before you bomb a country is fascinating. We should try it." Carswell: ".@mattyglesias Its new. We are reclaiming for Parliament what we gained in the 1640s, but lost in 1680s."
Any other powers parliament should take back while it's got the executive on the ropes?
Have they? AS far as I can see they still finish on Friday and leave on Saturday but if there is breaking new developments then by all means correct me.
I don't know, hence the question mark ;-) Too lazy to look it up right now!
Do you have your sights set on a job as a tory or lib dem whip? You seem overqualified if anything. ;-)
Its quite simple, he was in a rush to send as strongly a worded messaged to the Assad regime on the use of chemical weapons last week in the hope that we might prevent their further use in the immediate future!
2313: Ed Miliband tells the BBC he was "determined" to "learn the lessons of Iraq" and says the prime minister must learn not to be "cavalier". He adds that the so-called special relationship between the US and UK "cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants to do".
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.
Come off it, Southam, really.
For heaven's sake, we're grown ups here.
You might well be right that it won't actually work for party advantage, but to argue that they were trying to do anything other than play silly buggers is risible, absolutely risible.
I understand that you want this to be the case; but I'm afraid that does not make it so. Cameron misjudged his party and misjudged his ability to persuade MPs of his case. Labour took a different view to Cameron and the government, it's as simple as that. If Cameron had been able to persuade the nearly 100 backbench Tories and LDs who did not vote with him that would not have been a problem. But he couldn't. He miscalculated. And now both he and the UK are substantially diminished on the international stage; which is why it is not a night for any kind of triumphalism.
SO
Both Cameron and Miliband misjudged today.
Neither expected or wanted the outcome, which has diminished both their personal reputations and, more importantly, the UK's international standing and reputation with its core allies.
It is a hard lesson that both parties have learnt and a reminder why cross-party support on decisions to engage in military action has long been established practice.
Cameron lost because he couldn't carry his party and his MPs thought they were still on holiday.
Miliband lost because he sacrificed the national interest to play party political games without thinking about the downside risksto the country.
2313: Ed Miliband tells the BBC he was "determined" to "learn the lessons of Iraq" and says the prime minister must learn not to be "cavalier". He adds that the so-called special relationship between the US and UK "cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants to do".
Obama will mark his card.
What a load of bollocks from miliband,he would be doing exactly the same as Cameron was doing if he was PM.I hope the british people see through this labour leader.
2313: Ed Miliband tells the BBC he was "determined" to "learn the lessons of Iraq" and says the prime minister must learn not to be "cavalier". He adds that the so-called special relationship between the US and UK "cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants to do".
Quite possibly. Of course he may have made the mistake (not for the first time) of believing others to be honourable.
But in the bigger picture, this is not about Cameron.
It's certainly not about Ed, who was clear about his party's policy - and the Conservatives have more MPs than Labour - so this freak accident should never have happened.
Ed overestimated Cameron's ability to deliver his own party
2313: Ed Miliband tells the BBC he was "determined" to "learn the lessons of Iraq" and says the prime minister must learn not to be "cavalier". He adds that the so-called special relationship between the US and UK "cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants to do".
Obama will mark his card.
Ed hasn't got what he wanted. I wonder when someone's going to point that out and ask him whether he'll reconsider later.
I don't understand Cameron's rush to hand Syria (a country with a huge stockpile of chemical weapons) over to a bunch of loosely aligned hardline Islamists and probable terrorists or terrorist affiliate groups.
Intervention makes little sense for Britain, America may want Russian influence out of the Middle East and a proxy war in Syria could be used to achieve that goal, but even then we don't really need to be involved in that.
'What a load of bollocks from miliband,he would be doing exactly the same as Cameron was doing.I hope the british people see through this labour leader.'
Yes,pathetic but not unexpected,Ed's played a blinder for Assad.
Avery LP WRONG John Boehner, who is the most powerful elected Republican at the moment as Speaker of the House, has demanded a Congressional vote and is very sceptical, Rand Paul, one of the leading candidates for 2016 is outright opposed. John McCain may be for, but he is largely yesterday's news in terms of the present GOP. Both Obama and Biden attacked Bush for going to war without Congress, Biden even said he should be impeached if he did it over Iran, neither will back action now.
From James Chapman at the Mail - Last time Parliament rejected PM's judgement on matter of war and peace was Lord North, who lost a vote of confidence over Yorktown in 1782
I was just going to just post that Ed Miliband had managed to torpedo any meaningful response from the UK to the use of chemical weapons verbally or through military action in the last 24 hours with his actions. And while I remain angry at the Tory backbenchers who aided him in this effort, it was Ed Miliband who immediately dithered and then reneged on a cross party agreement reached yesterday. I remain torn on the issue of military action in Syria, but I was absolutely sure that its was vital that the UK Government have the ability to bring a strongly worded condemnation of the use of chemical weapons with the back up threat of military action to the UN Security table.
RichardNavabi - US opinion is equally opposed, this has got nothing to do with the special relationship, as had Congress voted on it it would almost certainly have opposed it too, what it does show is a rather gutless and weak response on the part of the West to Assad, who will now get a slap on the wrist at best. I never supported a full-scale intervention, but now it looks there will be virtually no action at all!
Yes, this has torpedoed it. I don't think Obama will act alone, or with France, and Assad can now call his bluff with impunity.
That's why I said the very successful 80-year ban on chemical weapons is now dead.
At the very least we should have pretended to wield a big stick, but now we - that's the Western world - won't.
For better or worse the proposed strikes would have had a fairly insignificant effect on Syria's wider military capability.
So they're going to lob a few missiles at people in Damascus and elsewhere in order to make a few explosions and kill some people but to no real practical end.
Either way there seems to be little logic behind the actions the west is proposing right now. Well done to Parliament for calling a halt to the UK's part in the charade.
Even George Galloway looks statesmanlike in comparison to Miliband tonight 'Tonight was a great victory for people power and parliamentary democracy. And credit to the prime minister for accepting defeat with grace'
Raging and raging against Miliband on here. Contrary to the deluge of furious spin from tory sources over the last 24 hours, Miliband has been conspicuously cautious in the tone of his statements since the time action was first mooted. He was in tune with British public opinion then, and he is now.
Today the focus has been on the use of chemical weapons which are rightly seen as obscene.
But aren't we being hypocritical when both the US and UK reserve the right to first use of nuclear weapons i.e. use them offensively against civilian populations rather just than as a deterrent?
China and India have renounced the first use of nuclear weapons and have the moral high ground on the use of WMD. We do not.
Something else I am wondering. Why vote before the report unless they know the report is not going to rule that chemical weapons have been used. If they have and they can be reasonably traced back to Assad then hold the vote after. Enough people on the Tory side could have been guilted into voting for military intervention having seen a UN report linking chemical weapons to Assad. Real amateur hour from Cameron by recalling Parliament too early and going on the Obama timetable without thinking about it.
Something else I am wondering. Why vote before the report unless they know the report is not going to rule that chemical weapons have been used. If they have and they can be reasonably traced back to Assad then hold the vote after. Enough people on the Tory side could have been guilted into voting for military intervention having seen a UN report linking chemical weapons to Assad. Real amateur hour from Cameron by recalling Parliament too early and going on the Obama timetable without thinking about it.
They don't have the evidence so they wanted to bounce it on the emotional reaction from the TV clips.
@Avery I don't see this as a great victory for Ed and I agree that the UK is diminished internationally as a result of today's events. But I listened very carefully to Ed's poorly delivered speech and agreed with the points he made and the strategy Labour put forward. It was (and is) incumbent on the government to understand the full implications for the UK in getting involved in Syria in any way, no matter how minor and justified our actions seem to us. Every option must be fully explored in the minutest detail, all evidence must be fully aired and international opinion has to be totally engaged. Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of them are desperate for Western intervention in Syria, and will use it as an excuse for their own closer participation in the conflict, with all the negative results that would have both for the UK and the Syrian people. While not ruling out military action, Ed argued that we have to make our case as watertight as possible because of the potentially catastrophic effects precipitous action would have. That seemed, and seems, perfectly reasonable to me. Don't make our enemies' job easier by doing exactly what they want; look from the outside in; take time to make sure every brick is in place. Failure to do that while getting involved in the very heart of the most unstable geo-political fault line in the world would be utterly disastrous.
Strange how the anger of all the Cameron supporting PB Tories seems to be directed at Ed M rather than the Tory backbenchers who refused to back their leader. Are they aware that the Tories have more MPs than Labour and the oppositions benches were not full?
If the governing parties were united on this, it wouldn't have mattered what Ed did. Methinks the Tories need to start looking at the internal dynamics of their own Party.
Those betting that the Syrian rebels and Al-Quaeda factions will be 'good boys' from now on had better start praying too. We already have a very lengthy list of probable war crimes on both sides and no amount of missile attacks would have or ever will change their conduct now. Quite the reverse.
For better or worse the proposed strikes would have had a fairly insignificant effect on Syria's wider military capability.
So they're going to lob a few missiles at people in Damascus and elsewhere in order to make a few explosions and kill some people but to no real practical end.
Either way there seems to be little logic behind the actions the west is proposing right now. Well done to Parliament for calling a halt to the UK's part in the charade.
Neil
The impact of today's vote is:
1) A diminution of the power of the UN Security Council; 2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK; 3) A scaling up of US military action in Syria; 4) A diminution of the UK's special relationship with the US.
None of which effects were wanted or planned by either Cameron or Miliband.
Can the comedy spinners drop the bullshit about the UK's international standing taking a drop simply because it has ruled out a military intervention that is hugely contentious even in America where public opinion is quite firmly against it.
Nobody believes that kind of supine US poodling dogshit after Iraq. It would have been far more disasterous for UK allies still intent on carrying this missile attack out had the UK went ahead with military intervention when the public and parliament is quite clearly not persuaded of the case for doing so. The public backlash would have been directed not just at the UK govt. but those leading the attack as we saw all too clearly after Iraq.
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.
Bollocks, the Tory govt in 1988 did what about Halabja?
Our great Intelligence blamed it on the Iranians. Remember we were on the Iraqi's side then.
On a similar point, which country did we pass some of the Al-Qaeda suspects for rendition. Syria, maybe ?
For better or worse the proposed strikes would have had a fairly insignificant effect on Syria's wider military capability.
So they're going to lob a few missiles at people in Damascus and elsewhere in order to make a few explosions and kill some people but to no real practical end.
Either way there seems to be little logic behind the actions the west is proposing right now. Well done to Parliament for calling a halt to the UK's part in the charade.
Neil
The impact of today's vote is:
1) A diminution of the power of the UN Security Council; 2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK; 3) A scaling up of US military action in Syria; 4) A diminution of the UK's special relationship with the US.
None of which effects were wanted or planned by either Cameron or Miliband.
Well maybe Cameron should have considered that before recalling Parliament.
In any event the actions that the West may or may not embark upon anyway appear entirely without merit so Parliament was right to say no. If there are consequences to making the right call then so be it.
2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK;
'Diplomatic Power'. Could you describe how Blair's actions between September 11 and the Iraq War, setting the tone for the last decade, raised the independent diplomatic profile of the UK ?
So they're going to lob a few missiles at people in Damascus and elsewhere in order to make a few explosions and kill some people but to no real practical end.
Either way there seems to be little logic behind the actions the west is proposing right now. Well done to Parliament for calling a halt to the UK's part in the charade.
Therein lies my issue with all of this. A real intervention in Syria means US and British boots on the ground and then handing it over to some "democratic" government made up by hardline Islamists affiliated to terrorist groups. What is being proposed just seem pointless and will most likely kill and injure a lot of civilians while also ratcheting up the rhetoric from Iran and Hezbollah, possibly even forcing Iran to become directly involved by sending military aid to Assad.
The whole plan seems to be very poorly thought out as if someone at the Pentagon has done on the back of an envelope and given it to Obama who wants to look like there are consequences for crossing his "red line".
SMukesh At least Cameron was trying to do the right thing to stand up to a dictatorial regime, Miliband was playing politics
They're all playing politics. Cameron could have accepted Labour's amendment since he didn't have the votes on his own side to pass it. Apparently it wasn't hugely substantively different, so the only reason not to accept it would be the optics.
Also a bipartisan group of 100+ congress folks sent Obama a letter insisting that he consult with Congress before launching any action.
One of the questions being asked here is that if over 100,000 have been killed already, and that's not enough to cause the west to act, how is the 300 killed by the chemical weapons so different - shouldn't the number of dead be the trigger rather than the method?
Strange how the anger of all the Cameron supporting PB Tories seems to be directed at Ed M rather than the Tory backbenchers who refused to back their leader.
Great point. Cameron was defeated by his own side.
Here's the thing. The public doesn;t believe that internationalism, in all its forms, is serving the UK's interests. Whether its aid, arms, intervention, whatever.
MaxPB - I do not support outight intervention on behalf of the rebels, but clearly a message needed to be sent AveryLP - Indeed, Murdoch does not represent every Republican in the US (and even his fellow billionaire Republican Donald Trump is also against)
how is the 300 killed by the chemical weapons so different - shouldn't the number of dead be the trigger rather than the method?
Clearly not or that might bring up some very awkward questions about the all too recent massacre of those protesting against the military coup in Egypt. No bombs for them unsurprisingly enough.
SMukesh At least Cameron was trying to do the right thing to stand up to a dictatorial regime, Miliband was playing politics
They're all playing politics. Cameron could have accepted Labour's amendment since he didn't have the votes on his own side to pass it. Apparently it wasn't hugely substantively different, so the only reason not to accept it would be the optics.
Exactly. If the Labour motion was pretty much identical to the government one, the government could have supported it. But maybe they liked that weak, weak, weak, succour to Assad line a bit too much to unite around an EdM proposal.
Alternatively, two points of view were offered for consideration and MPs were persuaded by neither.
For better or worse the proposed strikes would have had a fairly insignificant effect on Syria's wider military capability.
So they're going to lob a few missiles at people in Damascus and elsewhere in order to make a few explosions and kill some people but to no real practical end.
Either way there seems to be little logic behind the actions the west is proposing right now. Well done to Parliament for calling a halt to the UK's part in the charade.
Neil
The impact of today's vote is:
1) A diminution of the power of the UN Security Council; 2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK; 3) A scaling up of US military action in Syria; 4) A diminution of the UK's special relationship with the US.
None of which effects were wanted or planned by either Cameron or Miliband.
Well maybe Cameron should have considered that before recalling Parliament.
In any event the actions that the West may or may not embark upon anyway appear entirely without merit so Parliament was right to say no. If there are consequences to making the right call then so be it.
Time will tell whether the actions were "entirely without merit".
Comments
I really don't think it will do either.
Whether some of the papers call this a Bombnishambles or not, it's more likely to provoke relief from the public rather than huge changes in support or opposition to any of the parties.
The other thing to note is that, as much as this was a Cameron misjudgement, Clegg nailed himself quite firmly to Cameron's mast and his misjudgement of his own party and base is far more inexplicable and is also being repeated on a far more regular basis than even Cameron these days.
The party conferences for Clegg and Cameron will not be the happiest of ones now.
those 5 (+ Stephen Hepburn) voted against Labour amendment. Fitzpatrick resigned his junior shadow job.
I think newly elected MPs from 2010 are over-represented in that list, and also those selected by open primary.
For heaven's sake, we're grown ups here.
You might well be right that it won't actually work for party advantage, but to argue that they were trying to do anything other than play silly buggers is risible, absolutely risible.
Yes,Assad's the winner tonight.
Con rebellion 10%.
That's why I said the very successful 80-year ban on chemical weapons is now dead.
At the very least we should have pretended to wield a big stick, but now we - that's the Western world - won't.
UKIP, which led the "no to war in Syria campaign" is very satisfied that Cammo's plans were laid to nought by mostly back-bench tory MP's. There may be some interesting shifts of allignment soon. And no, I don't have any hard news on this.
Do you seriously think anyone will think you are giving helpful advice to the Con party?
The reason for your endless posts is that you are terrified that Cameron is going to win and you know he is the Conservatives' best option.
As illustrated by the current polls.
If still in doubt - ask Rod Crosby.
Obama is being goaded into action in Syria by the Republicans.
And they are using the same "weak, weak, weak" line against Obama that is being used against Miliband in the UK.
Obama has the freedom to bypass Congress (and the UNSC) and enough political capital to ignore public opinion on military intervention. Americans may not support further military adventures in the Middle East but if it is ordered by the Commander-in-Chief the public rallies behind the troops.
On the scale of the intervention, wait for the Pentagon hawks to talk it up. The US military is committed to the doctrine of "if it is worth doing at all it has to be done properly".
Well are they ordering them out on Friday, instead?
I was just doing the calculation as a % of the entire parliamentary party.
He's a conniving and opportunistic little sh1t, for sure, but you have to admire the chutzpah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4nFxZhw400&feature=youtu.be
2257: The White House has responded to the news across the Atlantic. Here's the statement in full: "We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the UK tonight. The US will continue to consult with the UK government - one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
That sounds awfully like victory for Assad, Putin, and Ed, no?
One cannot cry god for Harry England and St. George on one hand, and give soldiers returning from Afghanistan their P45s on the other.
But in the bigger picture, this is not about Cameron.
Today was a mistake.
Miliband didn't intend it to end with a defeat for both motions. He will now be exposed (probably unfairly) by the finger of blame being pointed his way, He will just have to avoid trips to Washington for the rest of this parliament.
Cameron was not expecting defeat either. His and Hague's leadership in international forums is now diminished and the special relationship with the US has been set back.
I doubt even the MPs who voted against both motions expected a defeat.The reaction to the tellers approach to the clerks table was one of shocked amusement rather than triumph.
I even suspect that if the vote was held again immediately after the result was known the government would have got its majority.
But the Syrian Civil War has not ended and new atrocities will occur demanding of action from the international community.
What looks highly likely is a short term fall in the UN Security Council's influence. Russia and China have power through their vetoes but if the US is going to by-pass the Council then that power no longer exists.
Perhaps we shall see Putin and Lavrov courting Cameron and Hague now to try to pull the US back to the UNSC?
Interesting times.
Are they? As far as I can see they still finish on Friday and leave on Saturday but if there is breaking new developments then by all means correct me. If they have shifted it to Friday then that would be a pretty clear signal about imminent missile attacks.
August 28
Brilliant move by labour over Syria,made Cameron look like the old grand duke of York.
How can Cameron have miliband on the ropes and then he lets labour take the high ground over Syria,My Conclusion - he's crap.
Time to go,and time for Theresa may.
Carswell: ".@mattyglesias Its new. We are reclaiming for Parliament what we gained in the 1640s, but lost in 1680s."
Any other powers parliament should take back while it's got the executive on the ropes?
You're frit (as one great lady said) and you're absolutely right to be.
Now, what do reckon the next MORI Leaders' rating is going to show?
Cameron was beaten by coalition MPs, not by labour.
2313: Ed Miliband tells the BBC he was "determined" to "learn the lessons of Iraq" and says the prime minister must learn not to be "cavalier". He adds that the so-called special relationship between the US and UK "cannot simply be about doing what the American president says he wants to do".
Obama will mark his card.
Both Cameron and Miliband misjudged today.
Neither expected or wanted the outcome, which has diminished both their personal reputations and, more importantly, the UK's international standing and reputation with its core allies.
It is a hard lesson that both parties have learnt and a reminder why cross-party support on decisions to engage in military action has long been established practice.
Cameron lost because he couldn't carry his party and his MPs thought they were still on holiday.
Miliband lost because he sacrificed the national interest to play party political games without thinking about the downside risksto the country.
Ed overestimated Cameron's ability to deliver his own party
Intervention makes little sense for Britain, America may want Russian influence out of the Middle East and a proxy war in Syria could be used to achieve that goal, but even then we don't really need to be involved in that.
'What a load of bollocks from miliband,he would be doing exactly the same as Cameron was doing.I hope the british people see through this labour leader.'
Yes,pathetic but not unexpected,Ed's played a blinder for Assad.
Interesting person to pin one's career hopes on.
For better or worse the proposed strikes would have had a fairly insignificant effect on Syria's wider military capability.
Either way there seems to be little logic behind the actions the west is proposing right now. Well done to Parliament for calling a halt to the UK's part in the charade.
But aren't we being hypocritical when both the US and UK reserve the right to first use of nuclear weapons i.e. use them offensively against civilian populations rather just than as a deterrent?
China and India have renounced the first use of nuclear weapons and have the moral high ground on the use of WMD. We do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
Like that's going to stop Assad.
Ed better pray the body count doesn't start rising. Make he could send his wee dougie to reason with the great leader.
I don't see this as a great victory for Ed and I agree that the UK is diminished internationally as a result of today's events. But I listened very carefully to Ed's poorly delivered speech and agreed with the points he made and the strategy Labour put forward. It was (and is) incumbent on the government to understand the full implications for the UK in getting involved in Syria in any way, no matter how minor and justified our actions seem to us. Every option must be fully explored in the minutest detail, all evidence must be fully aired and international opinion has to be totally engaged. Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of them are desperate for Western intervention in Syria, and will use it as an excuse for their own closer participation in the conflict, with all the negative results that would have both for the UK and the Syrian people. While not ruling out military action, Ed argued that we have to make our case as watertight as possible because of the potentially catastrophic effects precipitous action would have. That seemed, and seems, perfectly reasonable to me. Don't make our enemies' job easier by doing exactly what they want; look from the outside in; take time to make sure every brick is in place. Failure to do that while getting involved in the very heart of the most unstable geo-political fault line in the world would be utterly disastrous.
If the governing parties were united on this, it wouldn't have mattered what Ed did. Methinks the Tories need to start looking at the internal dynamics of their own Party.
The impact of today's vote is:
1) A diminution of the power of the UN Security Council;
2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK;
3) A scaling up of US military action in Syria;
4) A diminution of the UK's special relationship with the US.
None of which effects were wanted or planned by either Cameron or Miliband.
Nobody believes that kind of supine US poodling dogshit after Iraq. It would have been far more disasterous for UK allies still intent on carrying this missile attack out had the UK went ahead with military intervention when the public and parliament is quite clearly not persuaded of the case for doing so. The public backlash would have been directed not just at the UK govt. but those leading the attack as we saw all too clearly after Iraq.
On a similar point, which country did we pass some of the Al-Qaeda suspects for rendition. Syria, maybe ?
In any event the actions that the West may or may not embark upon anyway appear entirely without merit so Parliament was right to say no. If there are consequences to making the right call then so be it.
2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK;
'Diplomatic Power'. Could you describe how Blair's actions between September 11 and the Iraq War, setting the tone for the last decade, raised the independent diplomatic profile of the UK ?
The whole plan seems to be very poorly thought out as if someone at the Pentagon has done on the back of an envelope and given it to Obama who wants to look like there are consequences for crossing his "red line".
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/2013-08-28_letter-to-potus-syria.pdf
Also a bipartisan group of 100+ congress folks sent Obama a letter insisting that he consult with Congress before launching any action.
One of the questions being asked here is that if over 100,000 have been killed already, and that's not enough to cause the west to act, how is the 300 killed by the chemical weapons so different - shouldn't the number of dead be the trigger rather than the method?
Great point. Cameron was defeated by his own side.
Here's the thing. The public doesn;t believe that internationalism, in all its forms, is serving the UK's interests. Whether its aid, arms, intervention, whatever.
That is why Cameron lost.
AveryLP - Indeed, Murdoch does not represent every Republican in the US (and even his fellow billionaire Republican Donald Trump is also against)
Alternatively, two points of view were offered for consideration and MPs were persuaded by neither.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/syria-defeat-what-happened-to-the-whips/
Probably very little time.