politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Cameron Loses the vote thread
Comments
-
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
0 -
Assad's jets dropped a napalm bomb on a playground today...0
-
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.Bob__Sykes said: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.0 -
Eventually, set up the no-fly zone and saved the Kurds. It took a while, but they got there in the end.tim said:
Bollocks, the Tory govt in 1988 did what about Halabja?
0 -
Good post.Richard_Tyndall said: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 :-)0 -
I agree fully that direct British military support is not needed by the US.Y0kel said:
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.AveryLP said:
Fox News is the obvious place to go to get immediate US reaction.carl said:
Resorting to Fox News, Avery?AveryLP said:Fox putting Miliband up to demonstrate British weakness and anti-US sentiment.
Won't be the last time.
The good news just keeps on coming
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.
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.
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.
0 -
Don't you read PB? Ed's crap, and has been really quiet because it's summer and stuff and summat.IOS said:Cameron yet again has shown he isn't good at politics. He can present but he really can't do politics.
Gossip on Guido is much more serious than carrying a vote about military action.0 -
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)0
-
Close to 100 coalition MPs must have failed to vote for the government tonight.0
-
Rubbish. Cameron lost because he failed to convince enough MPs of all parties to support him.RichardNabavi said:@Richard_Tyndall
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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.tim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.0 -
Well to be fair he probably didn't think his party would destroy it's leader/Prime Minister as they have done done tonight....tim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.RobD said:
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
0 -
Hmm looks like Labour, Lib Dems and The Tories will revive bombing Syria after UN inspectors report0
-
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.0
-
timtim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.RobD said:
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
What price is Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?
0 -
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.SouthamObserver said: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.
Im watching BBC news now with more videos of gas attacks in Syria, this will get worse, public opinion may change.
0 -
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 material0
-
I've made a small investment. Hague may well resign as a matter of honour, and to shield the Prime Minister. Shades of Lord Carrington.tim said:Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 2m
Ladbrokes: William Hague cut from 20/1 to 10/1 to be next Cabinet minister out.
0 -
The man who gets everything re Ed wrong excels himself - Dan LOL Hodges http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10273833/Stumbling-Ed-Miliband-has-a-Westland-moment.html0
-
To think that Ed Miliband may soon be Prime Minister.
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?0 -
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.0
-
We actually know full well why Cameron should never have taken it for granted that all his own backbench MPs would support him.
Tory MPs demand vote on Syria arms
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.
Eighty-one Conservative MPs have signed a letter to David Cameron demanding a House of Commons vote before the UK sends any arms to Syrian rebels.
The UK and France last week negotiated a relaxation of the EU's embargo on exporting arms to the country.
The letter, delivered to Downing Street, expressed "very real concern" over the UK being pulled into the conflict in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-228024380 -
I cannot remember a vote in which a PM was defeated on a military matter of such importance-John Reid0
-
Young is not quoted. Maybe Shadsy knows something.AveryLP said:
timtim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.RobD said:
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
What price is Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?
0 -
Jonathan said:
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?0 -
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.0
-
Calm down GIN!GIN1138 said:
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.Blueberry said:
Cameron looks decisive, brave, fair and principled (provided you ignore the POTUS puppet reality).
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.
You are indulging your long established tendency to over-react!
0 -
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.surbiton said:
I just can't wait for Fitalass' comments. Where is Plato when you need her ? I fear the 25 quid may ahve been wasted !RedRag1 said:When do we get the Cameron is crap thread? For a man who was supposedly in PR....he is crap at PR.
0 -
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.Mick_Pork said:We actually know full well why Cameron should never have taken it for granted that all his own backbench MPs would support him.
Tory MPs demand vote on Syria arms
Eighty-one Conservative MPs have signed a letter to David Cameron demanding a House of Commons vote before the UK sends any arms to Syrian rebels.
The UK and France last week negotiated a relaxation of the EU's embargo on exporting arms to the country.
The letter, delivered to Downing Street, expressed "very real concern" over the UK being pulled into the conflict in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22802438
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.0 -
The Chief Whip is part of the cabinet, just attends, that's why he's not listedDecrepitJohnL said:
Young is not quoted. Maybe Shadsy knows something.AveryLP said:
timtim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.RobD said:
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
What price isn't Sir George Young to be next out of the cabinet?0 -
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.HYUFD said: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
0 -
Is it me, or does Adam Boulton look absolutely devastated. His voice is cracking he is that emotional.0
-
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.Richard_Tyndall said:
Rubbish. Cameron lost because he failed to convince enough MPs of all parties to support him.
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.
0 -
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.GIN1138 said:
Well to be fair he probably didn't think his party would destroy it's leader/Prime Minister as they have done done tonight....tim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.RobD said:
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
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 2015.0 -
Division list on Labour amendment out0
-
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?tim said:
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.GIN1138 said:
Well to be fair he probably didn't think his party would destroy it's leader/Prime Minister as they have done done tonight....tim said:
And he recalled Parliament thinking he could get it.RobD said:
From what I read he made it clear that any action would rely on Parliamentary approval.tim said:Sunday Times Washington Correspondent
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
Staggering misjudgement from the arrogant fop.
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.
0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_defeats_in_the_House_of_Commons
This lists defeats since 1945, none directly defence. (The Gurkha motion involving personnel but not the same kettle of fish.)0 -
Former general secretary of Labour Party Peter Watt:
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.."
0 -
Didn't take Dan long to say tonight was another absolute disaster for Ed and and outright victory for his hero Dave.bigjohnowls said:The man who gets everything re Ed wrong excels himself - Dan LOL Hodges http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10273833/Stumbling-Ed-Miliband-has-a-Westland-moment.html
0 -
All except Willetts (and perhaps Clarke and Laws) should be ejected forthwith, given that they are most definitely craptim said:
He's not in the Cabinet, he attends meetings.
Along with the other undead "cabinet ministers"
Laws, Ken Clarke, Lansley,Letwin, Warsi, Shapps and Willetts.
0 -
If you can get Fox News turn on now for discussion of impact of British vote.SouthamObserver said: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.
Current head is positioning it as a defeat for Obama. "Even the US's oldest ally is deserting him."
0 -
I've not criticised Cameron or the Government, just said I thought it was a good day for Parliament.Steven_Whaley said:Jonathan said:
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?0 -
Different and opposite situation.DecrepitJohnL said:
I've made a small investment. Hague may well resign as a matter of honour, and to shield the Prime Minister. Shades of Lord Carrington.tim said:Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 2m
Ladbrokes: William Hague cut from 20/1 to 10/1 to be next Cabinet minister out.
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.
0 -
If it was near identical why did the government and its supporters oppose it?RichardNabavi said:
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.Richard_Tyndall said:
Rubbish. Cameron lost because he failed to convince enough MPs of all parties to support him.
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.
0 -
No defence defeats between the modern House of Commons' establishment and the Great War, which just leaves the interwar period.
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/defeatsc19.html0 -
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?0
-
Gordon Brown failed to vote for the Labour amendment.0
-
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.AveryLP said:
Calm down GIN!GIN1138 said:
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.Blueberry said:
Cameron looks decisive, brave, fair and principled (provided you ignore the POTUS puppet reality).
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.
You are indulging your long established tendency to over-react!
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.
0 -
Because it was clearly a wrecking amendment.SouthamObserver said:
If it was near identical why did the government and its supporters oppose it?
With all due respect, that is a silly question.
0 -
Labour rebels at first sight
Ronnie Campbell
Jim Fitzpatrick
Sian James
Grahame Morris
Graham Stringer
0 -
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.RobD said:
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.Mick_Pork said:We actually know full well why Cameron should never have taken it for granted that all his own backbench MPs would support him.
Tory MPs demand vote on Syria arms
Eighty-one Conservative MPs have signed a letter to David Cameron demanding a House of Commons vote before the UK sends any arms to Syrian rebels.
The UK and France last week negotiated a relaxation of the EU's embargo on exporting arms to the country.
The letter, delivered to Downing Street, expressed "very real concern" over the UK being pulled into the conflict in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22802438
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-154252560 -
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 ?
0 -
No Tories or LDs voted for the Labour amendment, as expected.0
-
Mark Urban on Cameron and possibility of not winning the vote. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-238855240
-
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]
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/defeats.html0 -
Quincel - We shall see0
-
It is worse than that, IMO.another_richard said: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 ?
Eden and Suez might be more apt and we know what happened to him...
0 -
Parliament dun gud.
There are still political dangers for Labour, as "events" unfold of course.
But hey. Ed stopped the war.
Weak, huh?0 -
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.0 -
Second division list out now
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/11/0 -
'France: 75% tax rates and support for bombing Syria. Very strange situation."
Maybe they can get their exocets on HP?0 -
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!)0
-
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.another_richard said: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 ?
0 -
Syria: Defections
Fairly decent rumours of regime official defections over last 24 hours. Who and at what level unclear.0 -
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.Blueberry said: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.0 -
He was busy saving the world.RobD said:
He failed to appear in the Chamber, according to Guido.Andy_JS said:Gordon Brown failed to vote for the Labour amendment.
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.
0 -
Voted against
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...0 -
You do know ed wasn't against military actioncarl said:Parliament dun gud.
There are still political dangers for Labour, as "events" unfold of course.
But hey. Ed stopped the war.
Weak, huh?
0 -
40 female MPs voted for the government motion.0
-
Mark Steel @mrmarksteel
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'
0 -
Which way were they rebelling ?AndreaParma_82 said:Labour rebels at first sight
Ronnie Campbell
Jim Fitzpatrick
Sian James
Grahame Morris
Graham Stringer
Against the Labour amendment or for the government motion ?
0 -
Particularly when it's about the most gravest of issues, that of war...Quincel said:
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.Blueberry said: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.
This isn't some local difficulty over schools or europe. This one is as serious as it get's.
0 -
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.RobD said:
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.Mick_Pork said:We actually know full well why Cameron should never have taken it for granted that all his own backbench MPs would support him.
Tory MPs demand vote on Syria arms
Eighty-one Conservative MPs have signed a letter to David Cameron demanding a House of Commons vote before the UK sends any arms to Syrian rebels.
The UK and France last week negotiated a relaxation of the EU's embargo on exporting arms to the country.
The letter, delivered to Downing Street, expressed "very real concern" over the UK being pulled into the conflict in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22802438
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.0 -
The Democratic Unionists voted against action.0
-
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 collapsed0
-
How ?RichardNabavi said:
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.another_richard said: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 ?
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 ?0 -
0
-
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'."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247
0 -
@anotehr_richard
Jim Fitzpatrick voted against both, that I do know. So I assume rebels on the amendment.0 -
I have been saying it for ages,all 3 main political leaders are pi$$ poor,that includes your leader miliband.tim said:
Hugo Dixon @Hugodixon 3mRichardNabavi said:
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.another_richard said: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 ?
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.0 -
It's not very often I say this, but I agree with Tim. :^Otim said:
Hugo Dixon @Hugodixon 3mRichardNabavi said:
Quite possibly, although the politics of this could easily ricochet back on Miliband. Very unpredictable.another_richard said: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 ?
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.
0 -
Quite possibly.tim said:Like it or not Cameron is a busted flush, squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling.
Don't rejoice until you've thought through the consequences. They are not pretty.0 -
Some Tory rebels: Blunt, Hollobone, Loughton, Henderson, Field, de Bois, Bingham, Bacon.0
-
Let's remember who travelled to Syria and made a "small, but significant" impact (their words, not mine):
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/war-plan-foiled-now0 -
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?0
-
0
-
No.Tim_B said: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?
0 -
Voted against government motion
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
0 -
Squid point? What is this Vogon poetry madness you are quoting, @RichardNabavi?tim said:squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling
0 -
HYUFD
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.0 -
"Quite possibly"?RichardNabavi said:
Quite possibly.tim said:Like it or not Cameron is a busted flush, squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling.
Don't rejoice until you've thought through the consequences. They are not pretty.
Bloody hell!
*checks betting"0 -
RichardRichardNabavi said:
Quite possibly.tim said:Like it or not Cameron is a busted flush, squid point at him now, holding hands and smiling.
Don't rejoice until you've thought through the consequences. They are not pretty.
It will be interesting to see how Argentina react to the HoC vote.
Maybe President Kirchner is preparing her task force now?
0 -
If it was practically identical how could it have wrecked anything?RichardNabavi said:
Because it was clearly a wrecking amendment.SouthamObserver said:
If it was near identical why did the government and its supporters oppose it?
With all due respect, that is a silly question.
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.
0
