Donate SIGN UP

Sackings Over Cameron Humiliation

Avatar Image
Gromit | 07:15 Sat 31st Aug 2013 | News
25 Answers
// At least five Government ministers face the sack in the wake of David Cameron’s humiliating failure to secure parliamentary backing for military strikes against the Syrian regime.

Mr Cameron lost the parliamentary vote by 13, after 30 Tory rebels voted with Labour. Another 31 Conservatives failed to vote.

Senior Tory sources indicated tonight that the positions of ministers and the Downing Street adviser who did not vote were in jeopardy as recriminations grew over a parliamentary defeat which is unprecedented in modern times.
“The Prime Minister is pretty angry,” said a senior Tory source. “This vote had a three-line whip and no, they didn’t all have permission to miss the vote.” //

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277598/Ministers-face-sack-over-Syria-shambles.html

A couple of observations.
1. Missing the vote by not hearing the bell is a pathetic excuse. If it is genuine, they they should be sacked as ministers for being grossly incompetent. If it is a excuse so they didn't vote, then the should also be sacked for moral cowardice.
2. There should not be a three line whip on something such as military action where an MPs vote is the difference between some people dying or not. It is a moral issue and MPs should vote with their conscience. Those Conservative MOs who voted against the bill should not be reprimanded.
3. The debacle was the fault of Cameron and the Government whips. They seriously under estimated the country and the feeling within their own Party.

Anyone disagree?
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 25 of 25rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't know much about politics but I do feel that MP's should vote (or not) on behalf of their constituents. So I feel that being forced into voting because of the party ethics is wrong. Why should they do that? Should they not vote of what they know is popular or what the party want? Rubbish to me, it's the vote of the country not one particular member as far as I can see.
If I were a Minister dismissed for voting against the government, I would carry my dismissal as a badge of honour.
I don' gromit, I have said many times I agree with not doing anything. But I just find it a little distasteful the way you have used this whole thing to score political points. I think this transcends politics.
I disagree - this is precisely what politics is made of. See mikey's thread about Cameron's fall in the polls. And for that matter, see Thatchers polls after the Falklands. War is most definitely relevant to politics.
Question Author
Tora Tora Tora,

I have been posting that Cameron is useless and not up to the job since 2005.

On Thursday, he was the first PM to lose a vote on war since 1782.

Am I suppose to ignore that? So as not to upset some raving right wingers who are suddenly passionate about the suffering of the Syrian people under Assad.

The same Syrian Government and Army that John Major and Bush Snr welcomed as allies to Operation Desert Storm.

21 to 25 of 25rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Sackings Over Cameron Humiliation

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.