Uk politics

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

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

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

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

Cameron and Obama: our relationship is still special

David Cameron and Barack Obama spoke this evening about their special relationship. Normally when people start talking a lot about their relationships in public, it’s because something is wrong (or they’ve just started out and like to hold loud and impressive conversations about whether to cook the salmon or the homemade ravioli in front of as many people as possible). So the fact that the importance of the special relationship was not just raised in the call, but included in the Number 10 readout suggests the pair were calling in the marriage counsellors. A No 10 spokesperson said: ‘The President stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the Prime

Syria debate: the sensible and profound punditry on Twitter

At 10.00pm last night, Parliament votes against giving British approval to an American missile strike that was going to happen with or without us. But to the New York Daily News, it’s a sign that the British have gone AWOL. And to many in Britain, it’s a sign that the world has ended. Here’s a selection of the more emotional responses to last night’s vote: @paddyashdown In 50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed. Britain’s answer to the Syrian horrors? none of our business! The Respect MP George Galloway who rediscovered his liking Labour… @georgegalloway It was also a victory for Ed Miliband who

Alex Massie

On Syria, parliament has voted to have no policy at all.

A muddle and a cock-up. For all the talk of parliament reasserting itself, last night’s vote on Syria showed a parliament that voted, twice, to oppose actions it actually supports. David Cameron has been humiliated but this was hardly a banner day for Ed Miliband either. The House of Commons has, for now, cut off its nose to spite its face. Perhaps surgery can repair the damage. Perhaps it can’t. Because the longer and more deeply one contemplates yesterday’s events the more evident it seems that there were no winners. The government motion was defeated. So was Labour’s amendment. Since these motions were, in essence and in most practical respects,

Freddy Gray

Don’t be daft – last night’s vote was nothing to be ashamed of

Are you ashamed of your country and depressed following last night’s vote against intervening in Syria?  David Aaronovitch  the journalist is. I do not give a fuck what this means for Miliband and Cameron. It’s the message it sends to Assad that counts. I am ashamed. — David Aaronovitch (@DAaronovitch) August 29, 2013 Tim Shipman of the Daily Mail is. Glad I’m in France today, a country that understands the responsibilities of being a military power — Tim Shipman (Mail) (@ShippersUnbound) August 30, 2013 So is Sarah Vine, the columnist, as well as, apparently, her husband Michael Gove. Paddy Ashdown says that Great Britain is plunging towards ‘isolationism’. Even our own Toby Young

Fraser Nelson

George Osborne’s tendentious logic on Syria

A sombre George Osborne has just popped up on the Today programme saying that parliament last night triggered ‘soul searching’ in the country. ‘I think there will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that big open and trading nation that I’d like us to be or whether we turn our back on that.’ listen to ‘George Osborne on Today’ on Audioboo

Syria defeat: The Tory and Lib Dem rebels

These are the names of the MPs who voted against last night’s government motion on Syria: Conservatives (30): David Amess, Steve Baker, Richard Bacon, John Baron, Andrew Bingham, Crispin Blunt, Fiona Bruce, Tracey Crouch, David TC Davies, Philip Davies, David Davis, Nick de Bois, Richard Drax, Gordon Henderson, Philip Hollobone, Adam Holloway, Dr Phillip Lee, Dr Julian Lewis, Tim Loughton, Jason McCartney, Nigel Mills, Anne Marie Morris, Andrew Percy, Sir Richard Shepherd, Sir Peter Tapsell, Andrew Turner, Martin Vickers, Charles Walker, Chris White, Dr Sarah Wollaston. Liberal Democrats (9): Gordon Birtwistle, Michael Crockart, Andrew George, Julian Huppert, Dan Rogerson, Andrew Stunell, Ian Swales, Sarah Teather, Roger Williams.

Fraser Nelson

Syria defeat: What next for David Cameron?

Having lost last night’s vote, David Cameron needs to spend today fighting back. There are quite a few ways he can do so. He can easily brush off the more excitable charges: that he faces a leadership challenge, or that Tories will come for him at party conference. They won’t. Cameron was elected to fix Britain, not Syria, and he’s doing quite well with the day job. Employment is at a record high, schools and welfare are being reformed, crime’s down. Cameron has not been defeated on a cornerstone of his foreign policy, but on a plan to join an American missile strike that may not take place. It was

Syria defeat: what happened to the whips?

There are a number of serious implications of tonight’s result. But it’s worth briefly considering the whipping operation in the hours leading up to this vote. Firstly, there was no rebel whipping operation (as in, no backbenchers leading others to revolt, totting up numbers and issuing rebuttals of government claims) as there has been on other votes such as the Lords and EU budget and referendum rebellions, which means MPs were only being pulled away from the government position by their own instincts. Or they were being left to wander away from the government position. From the conversations I’ve had with MPs, the government whipping operation continued to be pretty

Isabel Hardman

Government LOSES Syria vote

In a surprise result this evening, the government lost its motion on Syria, with 272 MPs voting for and 285 voting against. The Prime Minister responded to the vote in the Chamber, with MPs on the Labour benches shouting ‘resign!’. He said: ‘Let me say the House has not voted for either motion tonight, I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament reflecting the views of

Isabel Hardman

Labour frontbencher resigns over Syria

Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick has tonight resigned from his party’s frontbench over the Syria vote, his party confirmed. The shadow transport minister told the Commons this evening that he felt his party’s amendment was still too open to military intervention. He said: ‘I have problems – for the honourable gentleman’s information – both with the Government motion and the Opposition amendment. I do not believe either is ultimately able to achieve the honourable ends that both sides of this house are trying to achieve. I’m opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop. And to be honest with myself, and to be consistent on both questions, I will be voting

Isabel Hardman

Number 10 under fire for ‘succour’ comments

There are currently two debates raging in Parliament at the moment. One is a reasonably measured (and lengthy) exchange in the House of Commons chamber about the merits of intervening in Syria, and the merits of today’s government motion and Labour amendment on Syria. The other is in the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, around the coffee tables of Portcullis House and on MPs’ smartphones as Labour rages about the suggestion from a Number 10 source this afternoon that Ed Miliband had his colleagues are giving succour to the Assad regime. After the leaders had spoken in the Commons, a Downing Street source was asked by journalists whether Miliband

Isabel Hardman

David Cameron attacks Blair’s ghost in Syria debate

Tony Blair would have had less of a presence in today’s Commons debate on Syria if he’d actually turned up to it. The former Prime Minister was threaded throughout the speeches, and no more so than in David Cameron’s address to MPs. Cameron was keen to emphasise at every opportunity the difference between the government’s response to the current situation and the Blair government’s handling of the Iraq war. He was quick to refer to it, saying ‘I am deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts’, and later said that Iraq ‘poisoned the well’ of public trust on military intervention. Though as James pointed out as the debate was

Alex Massie

The Closing of the Nationalist Mind

A paper with the title Scottish Independence: Issues and Questions; Regulation, Supervision, Lender of Last Resort and Crisis Management is not one liable to set pulses racing on the streets of Auchtermuchty. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Nevertheless it is a matter of some importance. The paper, published by the David Hume Institute, was written by Professor Brian Quinn and reported upon by Bill Jamieson in today’s Scotsman. According to Quinn, who is an expert of some standing in these matters, a currency union between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom would – or at least has the potential to be – sub-optimal. Actually we might already suspect that’s

Hitting Assad – and hitting him hard – is urgent and necessary

There has been lots of debate about our impending intervention in the Syrian conflict today. Many of my Coffee House colleagues have counselled against intervention, arguing against Danny Finkelstein’s piece in the Times yesterday. I’m in broad agreement with the general sentiment of the piece, but some of its subtexts need greater illumination. Leave aside Finkelstein’s argument about omission bias. For a moment, forget the ‘complexities’ of the conflict, imbibed as it is with sectarian differences, confessional rivalries, and great power posturing. Even the discussion of what should happen next in Syria can wait for another day. The use of chemical weapons against civilians is an affront to the very