[Closed] The beginning of the long slide down for Cameron?

When Milliband looks more statesmanlike than you do you know there is a problem.

2 selfish boys trying to score points off each other is my reading.

There is no requirement for the prime minister to have a vote on going to war.
David Cameron was probably quite aware that the vote would go against him otherwise he wouldn't have needed to call the vote in the first place.
He has avoided being the prime minister that gets us into an unpopular war (unlike Tony Blair) and when people say how can you stand there and do nothing he can point to the vote.
If anything he has managed to save face and shown that democracy can actually work sometimes.

duplicate

Firstly, it's my belief that Milliband will be our next PM.

But, I don't see it as a problem when a PM puts something as controversial (without meaning that to imply either course of action was necessarily wrong) to a vote, loses the vote and then abides by the decision of that vote.

I'd also disagree that Milliband came out of this looking either competent or statesmanlike!

with my limited political ability / knowledge I'd say no.

Why? Well, becuase who'd step into his place? I think he needs to take a lesson that his public schoolboy arrogance based leadership style is over. Its time for the people to be listened to, its time for the UK to be more inclusive and spend its money looking after itself.

Lets be righteous and conscientious yet quietly sitting in the background consolidating whats good about our country and making its industry and growth stronger. Cameron could accept the defeat graciously, listen, and try to deliver that, or he could buck that trend and lose office and we'll go around this circle of ludicrous "leadership" once again.

Waging wars isnt the way to go.

IMO

Does seem a bit of that going on.

Fair play to him for putting it to the vote though knowing full well there was a good chance of losing. My understanding is that he could have ordered strikes without a vote. Though to do that without the support of parliament would probably be more of a nail in his coffin than the lost vote.

To be fair Cameron has never been a particularly successful leader of the Conservative Party, he failed to win a general election despite Labour being in government for 13 years.

A short slide down would probably be more accurate imo.

PM puts forward a proposed Course of Action.
Action is voted against by the Democracy.
Plan is dropped.

How is that a loss? The winner here is the democracy.

There is no requirement for the prime minister to have a vote on going to war.

Whilst Cameron could have [i]legally[/i] used the royal prerogative, he still needed Parliament's approval. Failure to do so would have caused the coalition government to collapse. He had no choice.

As a long time labourite, and particularly a loather of the toffs and their attempts to demonise the poor and make them the scapegoats for the structural failures of our modern capitalist system, I can only reflect that Cameron has tried to do what he considered the right thing regarding the situation in Syria, tried to go about it in a reasonable and consensus-based way, has pledged to abide by the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives (yeah, there's a debate to be had about that, but it's the system we've got) and I'm actually pretty happy with him this morning (on this matter at least).

And, as stated above, he's kinda in a "no-lose" situation - if the US led intervention in Syria turns into another horror, we're not involved, and if Assad continues to be able to gas his own people, napalm schoolyards etc. he can rightly claim that he tried to do something about it, but was prevented from doing so. If the likes of Adam Afriyie and David Davis continue to snipe at him from the sidelines, then, so what, it's not like they weren't already doing that. It also neutralises UKIP's attempt to make this another issue on which to disagree with, and poach voters from, the Tories.

Milliband is in no different position to Cameron on this - both of them were backing intervention until it became clear that they didn't have the support of enough of their party on it, and have had to back away.

I don't think he could have done anything differently.

In his opening speech to the commons yesterday he said, intervention still looked very unlikely at this stage, he has merely ticked all the boxes a leader should.

As for Milliband coming out well, are you joking!
Where's the opposition?

Shirley the person who comes out best in all this is Farage, no?
Whilst I believe that is his stance, even if it wasn't, as soon as he saw the other 3 stand on one side of the line at the beginning of the week, all he had to do was stand on the other!
Political gold for him!

Well he went down for the 8 count yesterday, dont know if it is over yet.

Scary thing is that disalussioned Conservatives will vote UKiP 🙁

Markie - Member

Firstly, it's my belief that Milliband will be our next PM.

Dream on. If the economy continues to make good, it's Cameron all the way.

It's all about the bucks, pal. Everything else is just conversation.

How is that a loss?

For a Prime Minister not to have the support of parliament on such a important foreign policy issue as taking military action is extremely serious, and it very much undermines his or her authority.

Well, becuase who'd step into his place?

Boris and yes I'm deadly serious, he will be our very own slightly more educated George Bush.

There was two votes last night. The Cameron-backed one was voted down. But before that, the Miliband-backed amendment - that was actually much the same but requiring a slightly higher burden of "proof" - was also defeated. Two warmongers separated by a fag paper.

How many Tory front-benchers resigned their position yesterday, and how many Labour?

Yes, there was much posturing and choreography involved, but DC's judgement was off.

Firstly, it's my belief that Milliband will be our next PM.

However shit Cameron is, he'll never get near Blair who was re elected despite waging war at every single opportunity.

He has avoided being the prime minister that gets us into an unpopular war (unlike Tony Blair) and when people say how can you stand there and do nothing he can point to the vote.

I think the difference is Iraq was suspected of having chemical wepons (which they didn't), Assad is alegedly bombing civilians with chemical wepons (which it's hard to rationalise the counter arguments).

I believe if we handn't gone into Iraq they'd be in the same situation as Syria is now, which they're not far off anyway but that's a different argument. And if Iraq hadn't happened the vote would have gone the other way last night.

Boris and yes I'm deadly serious, he will be our very own slightly more educated George Bush.

Watch him carefully, he plays the clown very well, but he's very clever.

Sums our country's politics up really. We have a democracy, the democratic process is used and all of a sudden the PM is penned to be 5 miles up sh*t creek without a paddle.

If he had won the vote he would have been penned as a war monger and in 5 years time when we are still bogged down in a Syrian conflict with no end in sight we would all b criticising the decision to go to war.

And that I think sums up the entire issue. Don't get involved in Syria and people question the ethics of watching thousands of innocent people die.

Get involved and people questions the ethics of going to war and watching thousands of innocent people die.

Personally I am pleased the vote went against *at this stage*. We have to wait for the UN weapons inspectors report and we should at least explore all diplomatic routes via the UN.

There may come a time when intervention is the right course of action but to wade in now without a proper plan would not end well for any party.

How many Tory front-benchers resigned their position yesterday, and how many Labour?

One Labour front-bencher for sure - shadow transport minister Jim Fitzpatrick. I was particularly shocked as I have long considered Fitzpatrick to be a classic blairite rightwinger.

Cameron was visibly angry at being outmanouvered by milliband, he misjudged the public, labour and more importantly(for him) his own MPs
-the knives are being sharpened

Milliband looked bewildered by it all he didnt come accros well in the debate,
but he did have the nous to listen to his MPs, and come out looking the stronger leader (thats relative though)
his argument to wait for the UN report has saved cameron and the UK from doing another 'Blair' - cameron should be greatfull!

Clegg looked absolutely forlorn like he wanted to melt into his seat and his lackluster summing up showed that he didnt actually believe a word of what he was saying or what hed agreed to vote on

It's William Hague that comes out worst for me.
He's spent the last year as foreign minister rattling sabres and pushing forward any reason he can to go in to Syria.
Then the government loses the foreign policy vote on his pet issue, and now he looks completely impotent.
I can't really see how we can continue to have him represent us on the world stage.

Politics is about choices, and what is at issue is Cameron's rush to war. Had he waited a few days he would have had a better chance of winning the vote. Politics is also about judgement, and by rushing into the vote this quickly Cameron has demonstrated a lack of it, and that he is losing it.

When he can't carry his own party on such a fundemental matter such as war or peace

I would say that war is where party politics matters the least, to be honest. So it's no surprise. The vote on Iraq was a free vote too wasn't it?

I would say that war is where party politics matters the least, to be honest. So it's no surprise.

It's a huge surprise for that very reason. The last time the Opposition voted against military deployment was in 1956.

How is that a loss? The winner here is the democracy.

Actually I'm not sure that's true. The spectre of Iraq debacle hung heavy over the chamber last night. I am pleased that we are not supporting US policy in the region for the first time. However it's the fear of the electorate that has decided the vote rather than any moral consideration for the people of Syria and the legalities of chemical weapons.

Can we deduce from this decision that we will stand by when regimes murder their own populations regardless of the method? I'm not sure the right decision was made for the right reasons.

Interested in others opinions on this.

We do stand by when regimes murder their own people. Most recently in Egypt.

There's a difference with Egypt, the opposition isn't armed there.

However it's the fear of the electorate that has decided the vote

However I don't recall being asked my opinion by MP though, so I'm not sure why he decided to vote how he did. Pretty sure that isn't democracy - the MPs are supposed to be acting on behalf of their constituents, not serving their own interests/ideas/morals. IMO.

PM puts forward a proposed Course of Action.
Action is voted against by the Democracy.
Plan is dropped.

How is that a loss?

It is not the end. I doubt it is even the start of the end.

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

But is a government, even one elected with a majority, ever expected to have the will of the pepole ALL the time? Surely that's unreasonable?

Double post.

But is a government, even one elected with a majority, ever expected to have the will of the pepole ALL the time? Surely that's unreasonable?

It certainly highlights a problem with the system. There has to be trust between the electorate and the elected. That trust on matters like these has been hugely damaged by WMD, David Kelly and the ensuing chaos that the Iraq occupation caused.

Last night appears to me to be heavily weighted towards that rather than the matter at hand.

I think it was a clever and calculated gamble that has paid off in the long term.

The problem here is Russia - don't forget that we buy an awful lot of natural gas from Uncle Vladimir.

Cameron had to be seen to be at least trying to do something about Syria - it was probably fairly certain that he would lose the vote anyway, but if the hawks had had their way, then it may well have resulted in Russia turning the taps off and the lights going out.

Upshot is - Cameron seen to be doing something (winner); British people get their way (winner); Russians happy and gas stays on (chicken dinner).

The Yanks don't have this problem, so it's more likely that they'll act unilaterally - I don't think that the cheese-eating surrender monkeys will go in with Uncle Sam without us there to hold their hand.

Not a beginning of a slide for Cameron but certainly the beginning of a slide for our country.

We are standing by and allowing a murderous dictator to use chemical weapons against his own people, to drop incendiary bombs in school playgrounds (see harrowing BBC clips today) and flout International Law.

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

But is a government, even one elected with a majority, ever expected to have the will of the pepole ALL the time? Surely that's unreasonable?

However I don't recall being asked my opinion by MP though, so I'm not sure why he decided to vote how he did. Pretty sure that isn't democracy

It is our version of democracy - we elect representatives, not delegates.

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

Do you really think that acting militarily will do anything to stabilise the region?

Do you really think that acting militarily will do anything to stabilise the region?

If it is hand in hand with the Arab League and comes with aid and infrastructure investment that isn't just based on the advancement of our own interests then yes. It's a long term commitment though. And expensive. And not really attractive to leaders who are only in office for 5 year stretches.

Looking at the bigger picture for a moment, I'd say that it's a good thing that someone has said, amongst all this gathering of steam, that there should be a pause...

I've been concerned that some very big forces are gathering in opposition to each other over the long-running chaos in the Islamic "crescent" now focused in Syria.

Intransigent Russia and China on the one side - big and powerful nations on the up and flexing their muscles whilst on the other hand - the USA and the UK with now, France - starting to swagger it about a bit and think they can continue to adventure in the Middle East even when it's getting a bit close to Russia's own "sphere of influence".

Of course the situation in Syria is a tragically complete nause-up and any outcome is not going to be good but is also a part of the wider cultural situation. The Islamic world is in turmoil and starting to eat it's own innards.

What to do for the best?

Its unreasonable to expect the people you elect to do the things you want?

Well, sometimes. As above, they are representatives not delegates. Otherwise they'd be having referenda in your constituency every time there's a vote in parliament.

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

Don't be so ridiculous. Quite apart from the fact that any military action would have no discernable effect other than to kill more innocent people and make an already complex situation more dangerous, where does it say in the rule book that a nation's pride and sense of achievement is based on flexing it's military muscle? This may come as a shock, but the British Empire no longer exists, and the vast majority of people in this country care not a jot for willy-waving military adventures of this kind.

the MPs are supposed to be acting on behalf of their constituents, not serving their own interests/ideas/morals. IMO.

Well, you vote for the person who you think is most likely to reprisent your views in parliment. Obviously that doesn't always work, you may be a homophobic environmentalist. So do you vote in the green candidate who'll vote yes to gay marrige and the environment, or someone else who'll reprisent your view on gay marrige but not on the environment? Which is why the next quote fro JY is in my oppinion unreasnoble.

Its unreasonable to expect the people you elect to do the things you want?

Say the environment was a huge issue just bvefore an election (big flood, oil spill, and a nuclear meltdown, have all occoured in the month before the vote say). The electorate gets the environmental policy they wanted, but cannabis is legalised (which the majority don't want, but is in the Green's manifesto).

Bit of strawman construction and reductio ad absurdium there, but I'm just ilustrating my point.

We are standing by and allowing a murderous dictator to use chemical weapons against his own people, to drop incendiary bombs in school playgrounds (see harrowing BBC clips today) and flout International Law

I haven't seen even the faintest mention of us ever getting involved in North Korea, Burma, many of the African conflicts etc where equally as nasty atrocities are carried out - particularly in North Korea.

Further are do we always have to act as the world's police to maintain credibility? Who says Western democracy is always right? Would intervention even work?

There are too many unanswered questions at the moment to make wading in to Syria a sensible course of action.

Last night appears to me to be heavily weighted towards that rather than the matter at hand.

No it wasn't, it was because Cameron didn't offer a clear argument as to how this would save Syrian lives.

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

And what good would it do when deposing Assad would lead to further strife. If Assad goes the FSA, Al Nusra and the Kurds will all have it out in the power vacuum that ensues. That will kill more people in the long run than Assad winning the conflict in a few months whilst using mustard/sarin and vx on the odd occasion.

Do you really think that acting militarily will do anything to stabilise the region?

Precisely, if Assad loses.... chemical weapons could end up falling into the hands of Al Nusra and then Nato would have to go in with grunts to protect the EU from large scale use of nerve agents by Islamist's in Europe.

People die in their hundreds every day in far off corrupt despots - victims of a 7.62x39mm round to the head, disease, starvation, lynchings...how is the use of Sarin gas any worse?

Otherwise they'd be having referenda in your constituency every time there's a vote in parliament.

Can I just raise my hat to someone pluralising "referendum" properly, a rare occurrence these days.

franksinatra - Member

We are refusing to use our power, wealth and military influence to stand up for the right thing and, by those actions, have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

but weve stood by for the last 2.5 years and watched assad kill 99000+ other people

Will dropping more bombs on syria actually teach him a 'leeson'?
unless we go for a full on military campaign hes gonna be holed up nice and safe while our cruise missles just blow up more civillians

Even if some intervention were justified and could be shown to genuinely punish Assad this vote has effectively ruled it out and its Camerons fault; his haste and arrogance alienated members of his own party as well as the opposition, there were several factual innacuracies in his address and Rif****ds that I noticed,and hagues too- it felt as if our MPs were being bullied into war by their own leadership

Even if some intervention were justified and could be shown to genuinely punish Assad this vote has effectively ruled it out

I think the Americans might not agree

Also in my cynicism I'd say any intervention would be undertaken to destabilize the region further for geopolitical reasons. The rebels have been armed just well enough to keep things at a stalemate and western "punitive" intervention would do nothing to end that stalemate, just lengthen the time it takes Assad to put an end to it.

If we were to get involved we'd end up bombing Assads forces, then Al Nusra....the FSA would inevitably be caught in the bombing campaign that ensues to secure wmd from falling into Al Nusras hands. The FSA would then turn on the west and they'd all be killing each other whilst we're bombing all of them.

YAY!

stgeorge - Member

I think the Americans might not agree

I shouldve said our involvement

Can I just raise my hat to someone pluralising "referendum" properly, a rare occurrence these days

🙂 Although the current guidance states that once a Latin word has been incorporated fully into English you can (and possibly should) treat it as English word and pluralise it as such. I just did that to show off.

have lost the right to say that we are a country to be proud of.

Of course the situation in Syria is a tragically complete nause-up and any outcome is not going to be good but is also a part of the wider cultural situation. The Islamic world is in turmoil and starting to eat it's own innards.

What to do for the best?

Let them kill each other and get it over quickly, that way less civilians die.

If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil. Blocking Russian and Chinese access to oil where possible so they still have to sell it to us, whilst developing better energy security for ourselves.

Maybe threaten to glass mecca and medina in the event that any Syrian and Iranian wmd falls into rebel hands (aka going all Israeli on them).

If it is hand in hand with the Arab League

You've said a bundle there. Getting that lot to agree with themselves would be a start, never mind agree with the Western world.

T. E. Lawrence said (and I may be paraphrasing a bit her) that "the Arabs are a silly people, a little people, and will continue to be so untill they learn to stop fighting amongst themselves."

There's no way that the critical nations here (and by that I mean the likes of Iran and Iraq) will jump on board with the USA or Britain, Iran out of principle and Iraq because they aren't in a position to do so. And not least of all because the USA continues to back Israel (or is that because Israel continues to control the USA??).

If a new Islamic Caliphate is set up then we simply do what we did with Russia during the cold war. Surround it with nukes and contain it politically until it collapses when it runs out of oil.

Maybe threaten to glass mecca and medina in the event that any Syrian and Iranian wmd falls into rebel hands.

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy until you consider that your "we" in this case will not include the Russians and following on, China.

As I pointed out, but you conveniently ignored.

Are you happy acting in opposition to a resurgent power block that is setting itself in opposition to "the west" and how would you deal with that, should it become more than just talk?

Are you happy acting in opposition to a resurgent power block that is setting itself in opposition to "the west" and how would you deal with that, should it become more than just talk?

Yup, I quite like the west what with the enlightenment and the values that it imparted. Islamist values of the Al Nusra variety are at total odds with it.

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy until you consider that your "we" in this case will not include the Russians and following on, China.

So what, I'm quite sure Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Vietnam would quite happily ally themselves with us seeing as they are all looking for mutual protection right now - especially from the United States.

ooops wrong thread!

anyway

Cameron could still show some leadership and make an effort to help deal with the refugee crisis in and around Syria

For a Prime Minister not to have the support of parliament on such a important foreign policy issue as taking military action is extremely serious, and it very much undermines his or her authority.

I kind of think it's a shame that this has become the default viewpoint that the leader should be omnipotent and anything else is seen as weakness.
I quite like the idea of a PM being up front, putting things to votes and having a public demonstration of where the consensus lies rather than the system we seemed to have where people skulk around in corridors cajoling, bullying, and sniffing the air to make sure that the only things that go to vote will have the answer 'yes'

Cameron could still show some leadership and make an effort to help deal with the refugee crisis in and around Syria

Yup, I mean, why don't we let some of them in? Or help Iran, Turkey and Jordan to look after them

That would be going to far though. Bombing them is definitely the better option.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Are you happy acting in opposition to a resurgent power block that is setting itself in opposition to "the west" and how would you deal with that, should it become more than just talk?

Yup, I quite like the west what with the enlightenment and the values that it imparted. Islamist values of the Al Nusra variety are at total odds with it.

Well, that all sounds fine and dandy until you consider that your "we" in this case will not include the Russians and following on, China.

So what, I'm quite sure Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Vietnam would quite happily ally themselves with us seeing as they are all looking for mutual protection right now - especially from the United States.

Um....

I think I want that gif of the bloke starting to talk and then deciding to not.

Cameron has a bloody nose for sure, but far too early to write him off IMO*. He was wrong in his policy, correct (if misguided personally) to call for a vote and measured in his response. Of the Tories, I agree with loum. IMO Hague has come out worse from this (plus the hysterical Gove but that was no surprise). On balance though I see Parliament coming out with credit but each of the leaders having their positions undermined to various degrees. Milliband less so even though he wtill lacks sufficent gravitas. Ultimately he made the correct call but only in the end. In matters as serious as this, you do not change positions at 11:59 on the clock. Ok, I am glad he did, but his change of heart and misleading of the government was not great. Clegg - does it matter?

* Cameron would have been doomed by a failed military response. He gets a bloody, possible broken, nose here but he still has the hidden trump card which I have suspected all along. In the background, the economy is slowly recovering and this more that anything else will determine his future. Watch this space.

Woppit, I'll put it this way, are you happy that two anti democratic countries (China and Russia) are challenging us but for some totally bat shit insane reason we are indirectly supporting the jihadists in Syria at the same time as pissing off the Russians/Chinese? We can swat two birds with one stone here, we can make friends with the big scary bear and dick the islamists over. But we can't because we secretly want the influence over Syria that Russia has got.

What we should have done a long time ago instead, is to have gotten the Persians on our side and blocked Saudi Arabia into a corner. Hindsight is a bitch.

We've picked the wrong allies for reasons such as oil etc.

Is the economy recovering? or is it just a minor blip before the eurozone problems and the effect of Syria on oil prices (high energy costs = economic stagnation at the best) return to bite us?

With current economy climate it does not make any difference who is PM as UK is the 3rd largest debt ridden country in the world.

As for calling for a war against Syria or any war in middle east, all PMs from now on that initiate such call will have to think very hard because it will not be supported because of the experience in Iraq.

The winner in middle east is the extremists. Now that they have a foothold in that part of the world their momentum will continue. Previous Dear Leaders just exterminate them like vermin but then the West/EU stepped in to intervene because they disliked the Dear Leaders and there was a mass calling for DEMONcracy. Now the extremists run ring around the population and is slowly gaining ground.

🙄

Cameron is damaged but still likely to be the next pm. There will be no progress in Syria until we admit it is a proxy war and the various sides stop supporting those actually fighting. The one thing that has changed is that since Blairs legacy has been re-examined Blair has become even less popular than Gordon Brown.

Yes the economy is improving slowly but faces considerable headwinds. But I think there is a chance that people will be surprised on the upside about the economy (although not jumping up and down, there is still too much debt for that to happen) and this is Labour's Achilles heel. Do people believe that they can be trusted on that? NO - Brown and Balls utlimately managed the economy badly in the mistaken belief that they had seen the end of boom and bust. Instead of improving the budget situation they decided to let the deficit increase just as the economy was at its strongest - and Balls claims to be a Keynesian!?!? In so doing, they closed off the one tool that governments should have to help in a recession ie let the budget deficit increase, since they did this at exactly the wrong time.

Unintentionally, CMD may just have sidestepped a massive banana skin. He has been bruised badly by "getting" the first bit wrong but may well live to be thankful for this in the long run IMO.

The "hardcore" tag of Europe will now be taken up by a French socialist. The world throws up some lovely ironies now and again!

The "hardcore" tag of Europe will now be taken up by a French socialist. The world throws up some lovely ironies now and again!

I know France and the USA going to war together!?

A new and bizarre entente cordiale!!!

Freedom fries all round!

In other news the Germans are more up for a shooting match than us for the first time in 60 years. I guess the idea of proverbially shooting fish in a barrel doesn't bring back to many bad memories of the Eastern front or the 8th Air Force's bombing campaign.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/diskussion-ueber-einsatz-in-syrien-hollande-schliesst-militaereinsatz-vor-mittwoch-nicht-aus-1.1758350

And the Israeli's really really hate us now - the comments are the lolz. They have a better equipped and better trained airforce than us, so tbh they can **** off and deal with it themselves.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/perfidious-albion-hands-murderous-assad-a-spectacular-victory/

Props for the use of "perfidious albion" though.

Unintentionally, CMD may just have sidestepped a massive banana skin. He has been bruised badly by "getting" the first bit wrong but may well live to be thankful for this in the long run IMO.

Indeed, chemical weapons will be used again and more innocent people will die - and when it does happen all the tree huggers who were ranting at us for threatening war will now be ranting at us for neglecting Syrian children's human rights

and Cameron will sit calmly in any interview and blame Miliband for, as he will put it, "putting petty electioneering before saving the lives of innocent children"

For the last time, why do we care about the children in Syria just because chemical weapons were used. An ak round to the stomach is better how? It's an appeal to emotion to go to war for reasons other than saving the children.

There are lots of other dying children in the world that the British public and the government don't give a toss about, in the event another chemical weapon attack goes ahead Milliband should be ruthless and use that to his advantage.

Cameron can blame milliband all he likes, thats just petty politics

obama will go ahead with the strike regardless

and ultimately the failure was camerons, he was arrogant and tried to rush things through and was unable to convince either labour or the 40 condems who voted against

With current economy climate it does not make any difference who is PM as UK is the 3rd largest debt ridden country in the world.

I'd have thought the opposite is true if you're right. Interested in how you define 'debt-ridden' though.

For the last time, why do we care about the children in Syria just because chemical weapons were

Simple, because it gives the warmongers a plausible excuse to drop some bombs, and the arms companies an opportunity to make some more money replenishing the arsenals. Cynical? Me?