syria Archives

Thursday

5 Sep 2013

Portrait of the week | 5 September 2013

Home Having recalled Parliament to debate British military action over Syria, David Cameron, the Prime Minister, found the government defeated, much to his surprise, by 285-272, thanks to 30 Conservatives and nine Liberal Democrats voting with the opposition. He immediately told the Commons: ‘It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.’ Next day, Lord Ashdown, the former leader of the Lib Dems, tweeted: ‘In 50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed.’ Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime

Sebastian Payne

The View from 22: Obama’s zigzagging path to war and Cameron’s tiff with his MPs

What is behind Barack Obama’s wobbly approach to Syria? In the latest View from 22 podcast, former US State department official Colleen Graffy and the Spectator’s Douglas Murray discuss Obama’s latest manoeuvres in Washington and whether the American people still have an appetite for going to war with Syria. What will happen when the issue hits Congress next week? James Forsyth and Isabel Hardman also discuss how the developing Syria situation has affected the political landscape in Westminster. Are Conservatives feeling disgruntled with their party leadership over the disastrous vote? What can we expect to see from the main parties in the next few weeks before party conference season? Have Labour regained

Matthew Parris

You can’t demand democracy in Syria but ignore it at home

After David Cameron’s decision to seek parliamentary approval for air strikes against Syria, two lobbies came charging in, banners aloft. Now their attention has moved to Barack Obama’s decision to seek approval from the US Congress. Though on opposite sides of the argument, these two groups have something in common, and it depresses me. Both see democracy as capable of securing a right decision. Neither sees democracy as capable of making a decision right. Let me explain. The anti-interventionists are of course delighted (as was I) that our Prime Minister sought a Commons mandate for military action. They’re even more delighted now that Parliament has said no. They may not

Peter Lilley

Parliament has finally woken up – because voters are keeping their MPs in line

They should have seen it coming. A government defeat on an issue of war may be unprecedented, but defeat on the Syria vote did not come out of the blue. You can certainly blame poor party management, failure to prepare the ground, underestimating the poisonous legacy of Iraq — but such failings are common enough. The biggest single factor is one that ministers, the media and MPs themselves have failed to understand: Parliament has changed. The consensus has long been that Parliament no longer matters. It is assumed to be the docile creature of the government, full of spineless or ambitious MPs who are the slaves of the party whips.

Wednesday

4 Sep 2013

James Forsyth

William Hague tells the 1922 that ‘lessons will be learned’ from Syria vote

William Hague’s appearance at the 1922 Committee has underlined the fact that the Tory party is now split on foreign policy. I’m told that the questions that the Foreign Secretary received were pretty much evenly split between the passionate supporters of intervention in Syria and its passionate opponents. Those present calculate that the room was evenly split between the two factions. Hague, I understand, made a robust case for why Britain needs to remain an outward looking nation that is prepared to use its military forces. But he did say, when asked, that ‘lessons will be learned’ from how the Syria vote was handled. This answer will fuel Westminster speculation

James Forsyth

PMQs: David Cameron’s hatred towards Ed Miliband is palpable

MPs piled into the Chamber expecting a blood and thunder affair. But instead it was rather subdued. Ed Miliband chose to ask six questions about the Syrian situation concentrating on the humanitarian and diplomatic situation and Cameron had to respond in measured tones. Though, one could sense that Cameron would have loved to have gone for Miliband. listen to ‘Miliband questions Cameron on Syria at PMQs’ on Audioboo The most needle came in their finale exchange when Miliband declared that last week’s vote had not been about Britain withdrawing from the world but ‘preventing a rush to war’. Cameron witheringly replied that his regret was that Miliband had chosen ‘to

Isabel Hardman

‘To sack Jesse Norman over a moral issue like whether to support war is outrageous’

Jesse Norman’s departure from the policy board hasn’t come as a huge surprise to many Tory MPs: I was with one after the vote who was subjecting his twitter feed to a lengthy examination to work out whether Norman was stranded overseas. The only evidence available was that Norman went to a beer festival on 26 August and found out about the recall from the BBC and Easyjet. ‘I love beer festivals, but I also know when to turn up,’ grumbled the MP. It would have been a terrible message to send to other backbenchers if Norman hadn’t been moved from his job. This is a sign of Number 10

Tuesday

3 Sep 2013

Isabel Hardman

No-one has any plans for a second vote on Syria, part II

Today’s Foreign Office Questions was a far classier affair than yesterday’s rather snippy session with Philip Hammond on Defence. William Hague chose not to tell Labour that they had no authority when talking about Syria, instead choosing to focus on the humanitarian situation that Britain can still do something about. His first answer was as follows: ‘The United Nations has announced that there are now 2 million Syrian refugees in the region. The United Kingdom is already the second largest donor, supporting more than 900,000 Syrians, and we will do more. The president of the Syrian National Coalition will visit London on Thursday, when we will discuss further support to

Monday

2 Sep 2013

Isabel Hardman

Philip Hammond: No 2nd Syria vote ‘unless the circumstances change very significantly’

Defence Questions this afternoon was, as you might expect, a rather chippy affair. It seemed that whenever Philip Hammond rose to answer a question, he answered it by reminding the Labour MP asking it of their party’s decision to oppose the government’s motion on Syria. Nowhere was this more the case than in the Defence Secretary’s exchange with Jim Murphy, where both men set out some interesting wriggle room in their party positions on a second vote. listen to ‘Hammond: ‘Circumstances would have to change very significantly’ before MPs get another vote on military action in Syria’ on Audioboo

Douglas Murray

The Syrian paradox

Readers may be interested to know that I have a piece in this morning’s Wall Street Journal on the House of Commons vote last week on Syria. David Davis MP has a piece in the same edition making some broadly similar points. For me the conundrum of Syria now comes down to one particular problem. That is one which the House of Commons stumbled over last week and which the US Congress is likely to stumble over in the week ahead. The West has now given ample warning to President Assad of its intention to strike at some point. President Obama has famously drawn a red-line over the use of

Ed West

Stop mentioning the bloody war!

Seventy-fours years ago today we stood shoulder to shoulder with our closest ally, issuing an ultimatum to a Fascist dictator who had overstepped a red line. And the rest is history – in fact the only history that most people know anything about. One of the things the Syrian crisis has shown is just how much the Second World War dominates public discourse in Britain and the US. The last week has seen a flowering of dubious WW2 analogies, with ‘appeasement’ being bandied around by MPs and lots of usually sensible people making references to 1938, Chamberlain and Churchill. John Kerry has said that Assad is like Hitler because he used

Rod Liddle

Another reason to biff the hawkers of Marrakech

Apologies for the prolonged absence. This was due to a holiday in which I stayed away from all forms of communication for two and a half weeks. I cannot recommend this policy too highly. During my break, incidentally, I discovered another reason to physically assault the hawkers who festoon the central square in Marrakech, the Djema el Fna. There were plenty of reasons before – the leering, the groping, the monomaniacal persistence, the useless tat they are flogging, the lying, the cheating etc. But now you can add the fact that they all say ‘lovely jubbly’ as soon as they realise you are English. Sadly I never quite mastered the

Isabel Hardman

No 10: Absolutely no plans for a second vote on Syria. Labour: We could consider it

Will there be a second vote on Syria? As you might expect, that question dominated today’s lobby briefing with the Prime Minister’s official spokesman. He told journalists that ‘there has been no change’ in the Prime Minister’s view since Thursday’s vote and that ‘parliament has spoken: that’s why the government has absolutely no plans to go back to Parliament’. As I said this morning, the only way in which you’d be at all safe putting money on another vote on this matter would be if Ed Miliband came back to Cameron and pledged his support. And on this, Labour is being rather less equivocal than the government. Chuka Umunna has

Isabel Hardman

Nick Clegg: We won’t ask Parliament the same question on Syria

Nick Clegg has this morning added his own voice to those at the top of the Coalition saying they won’t go back to Parliament for another vote on Syria. The Deputy Prime Minister was careful to be clear that he and his colleagues respected parliament’s verdict, and didn’t want to push MPs when they had already made their views clear: ‘We’re not going to keep asking the same question of Parliament again and again. We live in a democracy, the executive cannot act in a way which clearly is not welcome to Parliament or the British people, so we’re not proposing to do so… I can’t foresee any circumstances where we

Isabel Hardman

The second vote that MPs really should hold on Syria

Even though George Osborne did everything he could yesterday to kill talk of a second vote in the House of Commons on action in Syria, speculation about that vote still makes the front pages this morning. There are probably safer bets to place. But one of the failings of Parliament last week – amidst all the cheering for a boost for democracy that is apparently characterised by ministers getting stuck in soundproofed rooms and missing key votes – was that in failing to pass either the government motion or the Labour amendment, Parliament failed to even condemn the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. That was underlined by

Sunday

1 Sep 2013

James Forsyth

George Osborne: There’ll be no second Commons vote on Syria

There’ll be no second parliamentary vote on Syria, George Osborne stressed this morning. There had been speculation that following President Obama’s decision to go to Congress before using military force, meaning that strikes won’t happen before the week of the 9th of September, there could be a second parliamentary vote on UK military involvement. But Osborne scotched that idea on the Andrew Marr show this morning. listen to ‘Osborne – No second Syria vote’ on Audioboo Obama’s decision, though, has eased the political pressure on David Cameron. Judging by some of the coverage this morning, he’s not a bungling leader who couldn’t get his way with his own parliament, but

Saturday

31 Aug 2013

Isabel Hardman

Could there be a second UK vote on Syria?

After the special relationship was found still breathing this afternoon, is there a chance UK involvement in Syria action might have life in it yet? If Congress does not debate and vote on action until 9 September, there is time for the UN weapons inspectors to report and the UN Security Council to vote. This assumes Congress does approve action (and Obama said he was confident he would get the support, hopefully based on better intelligence than that which led Cameron to be equally confident at the start of this week). But if all of those conditions are met, would the Labour party support action? If they would – and

Fraser Nelson

Barack Obama’s decision to consult Congress pays David Cameron the highest compliment

When seeking election, both David Cameron and Barack Obama promised to seek a vote before going to war. Until an hour ago, it seemed that the Prime Minister was as good as his word but the president was not. His decision to follow Cameron’s example and consult Congress has stunned Washington, not least because popular support for a missile strike is even lower in America than in Britain (about 20pc). So what helped shift opinion in Washington? Obama did not attempt to disguise it. Those asking him to recall Congress, he said, were… “undoubtedly… impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our

Isabel Hardman

Obama follows Cameron by seeking Congressional approval for Syria strike

As he licks his wounds after this week’s Commons defeat on Syria, David Cameron will have been given a huge boost this evening to hear that President Obama has decided to seek approval from Congress before starting any strikes. Obama said: ‘Over the last several days, we’ve heard from several members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree.’ This suggests that those who tried to certify the special relationship dead probably need a refresher course in vital signs as it clearly isn’t headed for the mortuary, rather an acute unit (and Fraser explained why that assessment was wrong this morning). Perhaps it shows that Obama

James Forsyth

Why the US is striking Syria

The US strikes against Syria haven’t started yet. President Obama’s Rose Garden statement and the fact Congressional leaders are being briefed on the intelligence tomorrow suggest that there’ll be no strikes today. (Update, 19.00: Obama has now said he’s going to seek authorisation from Congress before acting, meaning they’ll be no strikes until both chambers have voted in favour). When assessing the consequences for the ‘special relationship’ of Britain not being involved, we need to remember why the Americans are acting. They’re doing so largely because Obama declared that chemical weapons use by Assad was a red line. For the sake of America’s credibility in the world, he has to