Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Sackings Over Cameron Humiliation
// 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://
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?
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://
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?
Answers
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.
The 3 points seem valid, although I don't believe a party should control it's members with whips anyway. The party should be putting forward what it's members want on behalf of their constituents. Whips just prove how we don't even try to have democracy. And I think that point 2 was the most relevant. It should be a free vote, and the cabinet should not risk humiliation over an issue it hasn't ensured has majority support of the house. If they do then that is the cabinet's error and the buck stops at the top.
Ichkeria,
It is now very clear that Cameron was working to a timetable imposed on him by Obama. There was no need to recall parliament and drag MPs to vote on Thursday. The Commons was due back on Monday anyway. The 30 abscent Consrvatives would have been home.
The US do not want to wait for the weapons inspectors' report because they know it will be inconclusive and that will undermine their justification for supporting al qaeda, sorry, I mean the rebels. So any attack needs to be before they report which is in about 10 days time. Which puts a US attack as probably this week. The US wanted its allys on board before that, but by bamboozling us to vote when MPs were away on holiday, obama and Cameron f*cked up massively.
----------
Interesting titbit in todays Guardian.
// The calls came as No 10 was told that only 20 Tory MPs, out of a total of 304, fully supported military action against the Assad regime after the chemical weapons attack on 21 August. The other 200 or so Tory MPs who supported the prime minister did so grudgingly, Downing Street has been told. //
The calls came as No 10 was told that only 20 Tory MPs, out of a total of 304, fully supported military action against the Assad regime after the chemical weapons attack on 21 August. The other 200 or so Tory MPs who supported the prime minister did so grudgingly, Downing Street has been told.
It is now very clear that Cameron was working to a timetable imposed on him by Obama. There was no need to recall parliament and drag MPs to vote on Thursday. The Commons was due back on Monday anyway. The 30 abscent Consrvatives would have been home.
The US do not want to wait for the weapons inspectors' report because they know it will be inconclusive and that will undermine their justification for supporting al qaeda, sorry, I mean the rebels. So any attack needs to be before they report which is in about 10 days time. Which puts a US attack as probably this week. The US wanted its allys on board before that, but by bamboozling us to vote when MPs were away on holiday, obama and Cameron f*cked up massively.
----------
Interesting titbit in todays Guardian.
// The calls came as No 10 was told that only 20 Tory MPs, out of a total of 304, fully supported military action against the Assad regime after the chemical weapons attack on 21 August. The other 200 or so Tory MPs who supported the prime minister did so grudgingly, Downing Street has been told. //
The calls came as No 10 was told that only 20 Tory MPs, out of a total of 304, fully supported military action against the Assad regime after the chemical weapons attack on 21 August. The other 200 or so Tory MPs who supported the prime minister did so grudgingly, Downing Street has been told.
If Obama imposed a timetable on Cameron (and I don't say he didn't but I doubt it) then it was a bit remiss of him to force a vote BEFORE the Americans released details of their intelligence.
On the UN weapons inspection - of course it will be inconclusive as to the perpetrator. They are only there to establish that it was a chemical attack.
It's hard to see how they could prove anything else.
You seem to be suggesting the whole thing is a plot by the US to help Al Qaeda ... I'm struggling with that one to be honest.
Anyway, to have the Labour amendment as just an amendment and not part of the main motion was a terrible oversight. I like Cameron but I'm afraid he made a huge error of judgment over this - supporting my belief he's a good man out of his depth. I don't think you can blame Obama.
On the UN weapons inspection - of course it will be inconclusive as to the perpetrator. They are only there to establish that it was a chemical attack.
It's hard to see how they could prove anything else.
You seem to be suggesting the whole thing is a plot by the US to help Al Qaeda ... I'm struggling with that one to be honest.
Anyway, to have the Labour amendment as just an amendment and not part of the main motion was a terrible oversight. I like Cameron but I'm afraid he made a huge error of judgment over this - supporting my belief he's a good man out of his depth. I don't think you can blame Obama.
I think you have summarised it very well, particularly point 1. Absolutely pathetic as an excuse especially for Ministers, or moral cowardice.
Not quite so sure about your point 2. On balance, I tend to agree, since the Executive does have the ability to exercise royal prerogative should it need to.
And yes, I would agree with your point 3 - I do think Cameron and Hague underestimated their own party and the countries appetite for even something as vague and woolly as a "limited military action".
To then go on, like Osborne and Hammond, and say that they hope that the country "will not turn its back on international affairs" sounds like sour grapes, to me...
Not quite so sure about your point 2. On balance, I tend to agree, since the Executive does have the ability to exercise royal prerogative should it need to.
And yes, I would agree with your point 3 - I do think Cameron and Hague underestimated their own party and the countries appetite for even something as vague and woolly as a "limited military action".
To then go on, like Osborne and Hammond, and say that they hope that the country "will not turn its back on international affairs" sounds like sour grapes, to me...
For MP's to miss a vote on the most serious issue of any Parliament (military intervention by UK Forces) is quite frankly inexcusable and shows a flagrant disregard of HM Forces and the British public alike.
They deserve to be sacked and voted out at the next election.
'Family matters' or simply not hearing the division bell are the poorest excuses I've ever heard. They should have been there 10 minutes before it was due to be rung!
They deserve to be sacked and voted out at the next election.
'Family matters' or simply not hearing the division bell are the poorest excuses I've ever heard. They should have been there 10 minutes before it was due to be rung!
People seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that MrC had some wonderful epiphany where he saw the light and said 'hallelujah let us have a vote for I see that the nation is against my initial opinion'. He didn't. He was forced into going against his previous almost unilateral decision for military action when he realised the overall political position.
Going on the presumtion that those in minesterial positions are the best Dave could find it surely follows that whoever steps up to fill the spaces weren't good enough the first time round.
At least they can keep up with current events though and not absent themselves or claim that the dog ate their homework.
At least they can keep up with current events though and not absent themselves or claim that the dog ate their homework.
Why is it a silly response Canary.
Gromit does seem to be more pleased at scoring political points than the far more serious problem of the Syrian people.
Gromit, having said that, I do tend to agree with you on many of your points. DC appears to have seriously misread the mood of the Nation. However tsaking reprisals will not help him, in fact it could backfire spectacularly.
Gromit does seem to be more pleased at scoring political points than the far more serious problem of the Syrian people.
Gromit, having said that, I do tend to agree with you on many of your points. DC appears to have seriously misread the mood of the Nation. However tsaking reprisals will not help him, in fact it could backfire spectacularly.
// You seem to be suggesting the whole thing is a plot by the US to help Al Qaeda //
Not a plot, but an (un)intended consequence. Dropping 100+ cruise missiles on the Government side will undoubtedly help the Syrian rebels.
The rebels consist of al qaeda, mujahadeen, jhihadits, muslim brotherhood, and just about every other looney faction there is to be had.
Just imagine if the bombing works and these people overthrow Assad.
Will we welcome the fantatical islamic new Government?
Will we be better off dealing with them?
Will the Syrian women and children be better off living under a strict Islamist new Government?
Not a plot, but an (un)intended consequence. Dropping 100+ cruise missiles on the Government side will undoubtedly help the Syrian rebels.
The rebels consist of al qaeda, mujahadeen, jhihadits, muslim brotherhood, and just about every other looney faction there is to be had.
Just imagine if the bombing works and these people overthrow Assad.
Will we welcome the fantatical islamic new Government?
Will we be better off dealing with them?
Will the Syrian women and children be better off living under a strict Islamist new Government?
Ichkeria or anyone
// If Obama imposed a timetable on Cameron (and I don't say he didn't but I doubt it) //
Can anyone give an explanation of why the vote had to be last Thursday? Parliament reopens for normal business on Monday. Why did parliament need to be recall and MPs dragged back from their holidays early? What difference would waiting till Monday make?
The result was that the Government lost by 12 and 30 Conservative MPs failed to return and vote.
Did Cameron pick last Thursday? Why? If he did, wasn't it a terrible terrible error?
Anyone who doesn't think a timetable was imposed, why did the vote HAVE to be ladt Thurday?
// If Obama imposed a timetable on Cameron (and I don't say he didn't but I doubt it) //
Can anyone give an explanation of why the vote had to be last Thursday? Parliament reopens for normal business on Monday. Why did parliament need to be recall and MPs dragged back from their holidays early? What difference would waiting till Monday make?
The result was that the Government lost by 12 and 30 Conservative MPs failed to return and vote.
Did Cameron pick last Thursday? Why? If he did, wasn't it a terrible terrible error?
Anyone who doesn't think a timetable was imposed, why did the vote HAVE to be ladt Thurday?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Motoring4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News10 mins ago
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.