Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
A bit assumptive that they even consulted their constituents Paul.
Charlie voted to obliterate Syria (bit melodramatic I know) but I'm not sure the good people of Dover and Deal would want that.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
If Charlie voted against, that would flush the People's Port down the pan. We badly need, and currently enjoy, the backing of Cameron and Osborne. This is the second time Charlie has had to vote against his conscience for that reason; the first time was the EU referendum bill last year. That's politics, I'm afraid.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I am not at all sure there was anything courageous (or craven) going on. Thank Heaven the word 'Omnishambles' has made it into the dictionary.
It appears to me that Dave thought he was onto a sure thing. A 'thing' that would aid him politically, Thatcher-Blair wise. Maybe the folly was Whipping the vote, as some Whips voted against. (?!)
I cannot bring myself to concede that MPs 'listened' to their constituents, it may just be that there were so few voices (listening BarryW?) for the attack. It seems many MPs thought that the vote might carry and they could still, come the election, plead reasonableness.
I'm left wondering if there is a Parliamentary Conservative Party any more?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
P.S.
As Frazer Nelson has it in the Telegraph...
"Long before the debate, a young Tory pointed out that the problem with intervention in the past had been the rush. The West, he said, has "two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making: humility and patience". That young Tory was David Cameron, seven years ago. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10273841/David-Cameron-failed-the-test-of-trust-and-paid-the-price.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
post 102
The port of Dover is not the most important thing in this country
It doesn't get any bigger than your country going to war ,And the return of democratic powers to UK parliament .
Lots of MPs have projects on there patch, some times you just got to do the right thing for your country
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
From the Public Whip:
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons — 29 Aug 2013 at 21:41
Charlie Elphicke MP, Dover voted in the minority (Aye).
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 272, Noes 285.
Charlie's voting record:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40209&showall=yes#divisions
This, despite seeking views on at least three occasions over the last 48 hours via Twitter and Facebook. The overwhelming consensus from respondents was to vote 'No'.
Make of that what you will....
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Dover's CE and Dave have a great deal in common. What happened to make him the MP may well have increased his affinity with Dave also, but as far as Party Politics goes CE did the right thing. Adding to this, the scuttlebutt that may Tory MPs were willing to vote with Dave yesterday, but not at all willing to vote that way upon the substantive motion, that was to come. This has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster for Dave AND his Party.
Dave and his Party have lost a Whipped vote that they should never have lost, and one that there was no need to lose;talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
P.S.
I still don't see that any of this has done much to Boost New Labour either.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I trust that people have actually read the motion for which our local MP voted in the minority 'Aye' lobby.
"That this House:
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons;
Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to "overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible";
Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team's mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team's initial mission;
Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and
Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives."
Not quite a vote in favour of immediately obliterating Syria. Given that the above was the Govt. motion on the table, I really fail to see why Parliament was recalled to vote on it, could have all waited until the inspectors' report was ready to go to the UN at which time it may have been appropriate to support our UN ambassador's position with a mandate from Parliament.
Charlie's entry on his FB page this morning was that he voted in favour of condemming the use of Chemical Weapons, upholding International Law, increasing humanitarian support and taking any potential military response through the full UN process.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Parliament was not recalled to vote on the motion, as it is stated above.
It seemed that what was being originally called for was such a Parliamentary Mandate to act, as and when the Inspectors Briefing was given to the Permanent Members.
CE is doing what they all will be doing this morning, saying that they did as they thought right and proper.
Omnishables, omnishambles.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Gung-Ho,knee jerker,headline seeker,Blair wanna-be,`U` turner Cameron limps,damaged fro Westminste.......
error of judgement.......13 votes last straw for leadership.......would MrsT have been for turning ?
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Tom, I'm not speaking one way or the other on this with regard to the why of Charlie's vote. Merely reporting what he voted yes to and what he has posted to his FB page as to why he voted yes.
The motion may not have been what was originally intended, however, it was what ended up on the table as DC's motion for the day - so it was not the cleverest move to recall Parliament when the motion was yet unwritten and then to end up with what was on the table, which was a motion that could have waited until Parliament was in normal session.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
going off slightly at a tangent if what peter says is correct, surely we must give charlie credit for thinking of his constituency first?
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Yes, if he was thinking of his constituency first
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Neil, once Parliament is on notice of recall cancelling the recall would have been (until the result of the votes last night) most disastrous.
Dave had himself a slam-dunk certainty on his hands, he had the other Party leaders round for tea & biscuits and a chat, New Labour's Ed came out from that and talked as if he was ready to give Dave his full support. [Fortunately for him, he used so many phrases, so many commas -hyphens, and (brackets) that he had some wriggle-room left to him...]
The screen went funny, all of a sudden, the horizontal-hold was lost and a voice-over announced that we were entering the Twilight Zone...
Lo and behold, 9,999 out of every 10,000 ordinary men and women, boys and girls, and their household pets, were dead against any such action. For many many reasons, not least of which was a general mistrust or pro-war-waffle.
And yet Dave should still have been onto a winner. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how Dave lost that, penny-halfpenny wishy-washy, all but utterly inconsequential, vote.
I was expecting to wake this morning to a Leadership Challenge.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Maybe recalling Parliament was a mistake, but it doesn't excuse the outcome. The motion put before Parliament makes it clear the Government recognised the work of the weapons inspectors, was keen to listen to their report, discuss the findings in the security council, and consult Parliament again before any military action could be taken. Hardly a rush to war. Those who oppose intervention have misrepresented this from the outset, and continue to do so.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I don't know who these non-interventionists who are on the misrepresentation trail might be, but I doubt it could be said they were in the Commons Chamber last night.
Mistake? I cannot figure out who made the mistake, but it was either the Leader of the Conservative Party or it's Parliamentary Party Members.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Tom Austin wrote:I don't know who these non-interventionists who are on the misrepresentation trail might be, but I doubt it could be said they were in the Commons Chamber last night.
Here's one:
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-08-30/miliband-calls-pm-cavalier-and-reckless-on-syria/
"It was cavalier and reckless leadership that was taking Britain potentially into war without going through the United Nations, without putting the evidence properly before the British Parliament..."
Compare that to the motion put before Parliament.
"Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action; Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team's mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team's initial mission; Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place;"
Maybe it's just me, but those two positions don't seem entirely consistent.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Quite why these two things should exhibit consistency I know not.
Although the itv page that has the clip is said to have been last updated today, there is nothing in the clip to suggest that it was recorded after the votes last night.
It was ever Cameron's view that evidence of CW use was enough to legally justify action, albeit that Parliamentary backing would be sought before the UK took any action. The term 'limited' was interposed as a sop for those that feared we could be seen to be taking sides, and so entering the war in Syria. To further allay these fears it was quickly decided that the substantive vote would take place later.
I took it that yesterday's Government Motion was to establish a Prima-Facie case for them holding the view that an absence of any UN accord was not a bar to action.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Tom Austin wrote:Quite why these two things should exhibit consistency I know not.
Although the itv page that has the clip is said to have been last updated today, there is nothing in the clip to suggest that it was recorded after the votes last night.
Try this one then (Sorry about the advert):
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/miliband-accuses-pm-cavalier-reckless-083913532.html
The interview was filmed immediately after last night's vote. The terms he describes are not consistent with those Parliament actually voted on. That is what I mean by misrepresenting the situation.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
I've watched the clip.
He is a 'politician' and a Party Man. His interpretation of events and the reasoning of those who went into the division, and the reasoning he ascribes to we, the wider public, are very much in keeping with his Party status:he won no vote, but he is not suffering as Dave is.
The video contains three edits, and therefore he is answering four unheard questions. That he is described as 'accusing PM of cavalier recklessness' is entirely the doing of the Yahoo newsroom.
He wants all the credit, and sets the public up to be satisfied with his work, something that will chime throughout the Commons, though some will spin this so that it is the 'will of the people' that is responsible and is ultimately at fault and to blame.
Elsewhere we hear that the defence secretary misspoke, and referred to Assad as Saddam, this is another symptom of the Party Political disease:these mea-culpas, that Parliament and maybe even the New Labour Party did wrong last time, and have learned their lesson. I'm not so sure this is what is behind the public distaste of what was proposed
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.