Labour will vote against government over Syria

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

A Commons vote on the UK's response to a chemical attack near Damascus hangs in the balance, after Labour demanded "compelling evidence" of Syria's guilt.

MPs had been due to vote on whether the UK should launch an attack against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

But David Cameron was forced to back down after Labour said it wanted to wait for UN inspectors to report first.

Labour now says it will vote against a watered-down motion on the "principle" of launching military action.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

---

Guardian live updates also has:

"• Labour sources have said within the last few minutes that Labour MPs will definitely vote against the government's motion on Syria at 10pm tonight."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog

Labour had already said it wanted a delay until the UN inspector's report had been made public. The government agreed that they would hold another vote after that and before any attack, but this makes it even more unlikely for the UK to take part in action. In addition to Labour, about 70 backbench Tory MPs are said to be unconvinced of the need to attack, and some Lib Dems too.

[Pab Sungenis]

1. Come on, Clegg, this is your chance.

Pull the LibDems out of the coalition, vote against the war (you know you want to), and bring down the government.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Summary of Cameron's and Miliband's Commons speeches:

Opening speeches - analysis

Earlier, having looked at the wording of the government motion and the Labour amendment, I concluded that there was not much difference between them and it was possible to imagine coalition MPs voting with Labour. See 11.49am. (In the comments some of you suggested I was underestimating the importance of Labour calling for "compelling evidence", but with Labour not casting doubt on Assad's responsibility, I was not convinced.) However, having listened to the opening speeches, it seems clear that the House will divide later on party political lines. There are plenty of Tory MPs sceptical about military intervention, but I don't expect to see many of them voting with Labour.

David Cameron has had a grim 24 hours - when he amended the government motion to promise a second vote on military action, he was effectively conceding that he had "lost" a vote that had not yet taken place - and he seemed tetchy and a bit below par when he spoke this afternoon. He was at his most passionate when he argued that Britain had a vested interest in preventing the framework of international law about chemical weapons constructed over the last 100 years collapsing, but Nick Clegg was just as eloquent on this, if not more so, when he spoke this morning. And it was interesting what he said about having to make a "judgment" on intelligence, but his attack on Blair (see 2.44pm) did not sound particularly prime ministerial.

And Ed Miliband has had a good 24 hours. Having forced Cameron to back down on a second vote, it may be a while before we hear Cameron branding him "weak" again. But it was a tactical victory that conceals an ugly dilemma, and I found myself comparing Miliband with Cameron. Cameron's Europe speech united his party, but only because it won the endorsement of those who want an EU referendum so they can vote yes and those who want a referendum so they can vote no. Come the day he has to choose, Cameron will have a problem. Similarly, Miliband has drafted an amendment that appeals as much to die-hard non-interventionists as to the "something-must-be-done" brigade. Milliband kept stressing that he was not opposed in principle to military action in Syria, but I was not persuaded that he would ever get to the point where he would back it. Perhaps over time, as the international picture changes and evidence builds up, Miliband may nudge his party to the point where it can back a strike against Damascus. But today's speech sounded more like an elegant holding position.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog#block-521f6300e4b0cdd8c1412916

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Hmmm, a bit of a sticky wicket for the interventionist team.

Will the new coalition of the willing be basically us and France, with those democrats of the Arab League cheering us on?

Personally, I'm hoping that crazy-haired French philosopher dude is at the head of the invading ground forces.

[daleo]

4. It's almost as if there was a functioning democracy in Britain

Frankly, it's refreshing to see.

[pampango]

5. "Britain's failure to support strikes on Syria could prove decisive for the White House – which will

want to build a strong, moral, case based on broad international agreement."

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) reports that he detects "a degree of uncertainty" creeping in against the assumption that the president is on the brink of launching military strikes "probably this weekend":

The problem facing White House is three-fold. First, its intelligence assessment, pinning culpability for the chemical weapons attack on Assad, may not be as watertight as many had been expecting. Second, and partly as a result of that, cracks are appearing in Congress, which is fully aware there is minimal support among the US electorate for strikes. Third and perhaps most interestingly is the lack of international support.

But Bandow added: "I think they’ve found over the last couple of days both a lack of support at home, both among the American people and Congress, and then they look internationally and suddenly they don’t feel quite so surrounded by friends.”

Ken Pollack, an expert in Middle Eastern affairs at the Brookings think-tank, said Britain's failure to support strikes on Syria could prove decisive for the White House – which will want to build a strong, moral, case based on broad international agreement. He described the UK as a "bellwether" country; if it backs out, that could lead other countries to revise the strength of their commitment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-crisis-iran-says-all-efforts-must-be-made-to-prevent-military-action-live

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Labour amendment defeated by 220 votes to 332

2119:

British MPs have rejected an opposition amendment calling for more evidence that President Assad's forces had used chemical weapons in Damascus by 220 votes to 332.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247

Also: Shadow transport spokesman Jim Fitzpatrick resigns over the vote on intervention in Syria on BBC ticker