This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/03/syria-airstrikes-vote-cameron-haunted-by-memory-of-previous-defeat

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Syria airstrikes vote: Cameron haunted by memory of previous defeat Syria airstrikes vote: Cameron haunted by previous defeat
(35 minutes later)
One of David Cameron’s most searing memories from his first term in Downing Street is of the night in August 2013 when he lost a Commons vote, during an emergency recall of parliament, that was designed to pave the way for airstrikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. One of David Cameron’s most searing memories from his first term in Downing Street is of the night in August 2013 when, during an emergency recall of parliament, he lost a Commons vote designed to pave the way for airstrikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
The prime minister believed that the defeat, which followed a decision by Ed Miliband to vote against the government after lengthy negotiations in No 10, made him look weak on the world stage and undermined his standing in Washington.The prime minister believed that the defeat, which followed a decision by Ed Miliband to vote against the government after lengthy negotiations in No 10, made him look weak on the world stage and undermined his standing in Washington.
In the minutes after the defeat the prime minister and George Osborne vowed to themselves that they would never again seek parliamentary approval for armed intervention unless they could be absolutely certain that they would prevail. In the minutes afterwards the prime minister and George Osborne vowed to themselves that they would never again seek parliamentary approval for armed intervention unless they could be absolutely certain they would prevail.
Related: Cameron drops plans to hold vote on airstrikes on Isis in SyriaRelated: Cameron drops plans to hold vote on airstrikes on Isis in Syria
Cameron and Osborne were true to their word when they asked MPs a year later to sanction British involvement in coalition strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq. The horror of the Isis attacks combined with a clear legal justification for the action – the Iraqi government had invited the UK and other countries to intervene – meant that Downing Street knew it was sure of success when it tabled the vote. Cameron and Osborne were true to their word when they asked MPs a year later to sanction British involvement in coalition strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq. The horror of the Isis attacks combined with a clear legal justification for the action – the Iraqi government had invited the UK and other countries to intervene – meant Downing Street knew it was sure of success when it tabled the vote.
The prime minister won over most Labour MPs by offering assurances that the strikes would be limited to Isis targets in Iraq and would not be extended to those inside Syria. The RAF would provide surveillance and intelligence to coalition aircraft operating over Syria but would only launch strikes beyond Iraq after a further parliamentary vote.The prime minister won over most Labour MPs by offering assurances that the strikes would be limited to Isis targets in Iraq and would not be extended to those inside Syria. The RAF would provide surveillance and intelligence to coalition aircraft operating over Syria but would only launch strikes beyond Iraq after a further parliamentary vote.
In September 2014 parliament approved the action in Iraq but in Cameron’s eyes this left an important piece of unfinished business. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, explained this in a typically robust way when he said in July that it was illogical to target Isis in Iraq but not in Syria. In September last year parliament approved the action in Iraq, but in Cameron’s eyes this left an important piece of unfinished business. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, explained this in a typically robust way when he said in July this year that it was illogical to target Isis in Iraq but not Syria.
In September 2014 the government believed – and still believes now – that there was a clear legal justification for airstrikes in Syria: the collective defence of Iraq which was threatened by Isis from its Syrian base of Raqqa. But many MPs declined to accept this explanation, prompting Downing Street’s caution. But in September 2014 the government believed – and still believes – there was a clear legal justification for airstrikes in Syria: the collective defence of Iraq which was threatened by Isis from its Syrian base of Raqqa. But many MPs declined to accept this explanation, prompting Downing Street’s caution.
As the Isis threat grew over the last year, the prime minister felt it was important to address what Fallon described as the “illogicality” of the UK’s position. Cameron thought that extending the strikes to Syria was justified on military grounds – strengthening the coalition effort, even though the US is responsible for the vast bulk of the strikes – and on diplomatic grounds. Britain’s place at the world’s top table is based, in his eyes, on a combination of soft and hard power. As the Isis threat grew, the prime minister felt it was important to address what Fallon described as the “illogicality” of the UK’s position. Cameron thought that extending the strikes to Syria was justified on military grounds – strengthening the coalition effort, even though the US is responsible for the bulk of the strikes – and on diplomatic grounds. Britain’s place at the world’s top table is based, in his eyes, on a combination of soft and hard power.
Amid all the excitement of his election victory, in which he won a surprise parliamentary majority, Cameron never forgot the lesson of August 2013. He would only hold a Commons vote if he could be assured of the support of a sizeable contingent of Labour MPs to help him overcome up to 30 Tory MPs who would be bound to oppose armed intervention. Amid the excitement of the election victory, in which Cameron won a surprise parliamentary majority, he never forgot the lesson of August 2013. He would only hold a Commons vote if he could be assured of the support of a sizeable contingent of Labour MPs to help him overcome up to 30 Tory MPs who would be bound to oppose armed intervention.
A vote appeared to be on the cards in the summer when Downing Street spoke of a “full spectrum response” to Isis after it claimed responsibility for the gun attack in Tunisia in late June which killed 38 tourists, 30 of whom were British. Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader, said towards the end of July that she would look seriously at government plans to extend the airstrikes to Syria.A vote appeared to be on the cards in the summer when Downing Street spoke of a “full spectrum response” to Isis after it claimed responsibility for the gun attack in Tunisia in late June which killed 38 tourists, 30 of whom were British. Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader, said towards the end of July that she would look seriously at government plans to extend the airstrikes to Syria.
Some in Downing Street still hoped for a vote when it became clear over August that Jeremy Corbyn, a consistent opponent of military intervention, was on course to win the Labour leadership. There was some talk of highlighting Labour divisions by holding a vote in the short September parliamentary sitting after his election.Some in Downing Street still hoped for a vote when it became clear over August that Jeremy Corbyn, a consistent opponent of military intervention, was on course to win the Labour leadership. There was some talk of highlighting Labour divisions by holding a vote in the short September parliamentary sitting after his election.
In the countdown to the Labour leadership result, however, the prime minister made clear that he had not forgotten the lessons of August 2013. During a visit to Madrid on 4 September Cameron said that he would only hold a parliamentary vote on the strikes if there was a “genuine consensus”. During a visit to Madrid on 4 September, however, Cameron said he would only hold a vote on the strikes if there was a “genuine consensus”.
The formulation of words was a classic No 10 holding operation designed to give the prime minister space to try to build support for armed intervention while allowing him to say that nothing had changed if a vote was shelved. This meant that as recently as 10 days ago ministers were asking potential Labour supporters whether they could endorse a parliamentary motion that would make clear that RAF involvement in Syria would be limited to assuming its proportion of the coalition airstrikes in a corridor from Iraq up to the Isis-stronghold of Raqqa. The formulation of words was a classic No 10 holding operation designed to give the prime minister space to try to build support for armed intervention while allowing him to say that nothing had changed if a vote was shelved. This meant that as recently as 10 days ago ministers were asking potential supporters among Labour MPs whether they could endorse a parliamentary motion that would make clear that RAF involvement in Syria would be limited to assuming its proportion of the coalition airstrikes in a corridor from Iraq up to the Isis-stronghold of Raqqa.
The formulation of words meant that No 10 sources were able to brief on Monday night, with a straight face, that it was “absolute nonsense” to suggest that the prime minister had shelved plans to hold a vote. The briefing operation was launched when the Guardian, the Times and the FT reported on the change of tack in No 10. By Tuesday morning the BBC was reporting that the three newspapers had correctly reflected the thinking in No 10 after Russia’s intervention in Syria changed calculations.The formulation of words meant that No 10 sources were able to brief on Monday night, with a straight face, that it was “absolute nonsense” to suggest that the prime minister had shelved plans to hold a vote. The briefing operation was launched when the Guardian, the Times and the FT reported on the change of tack in No 10. By Tuesday morning the BBC was reporting that the three newspapers had correctly reflected the thinking in No 10 after Russia’s intervention in Syria changed calculations.
The prime minister has been consistent ever since that night in August 2013: he would only seek parliamentary approval if he was certain of success. In recent months, Cameron had hoped to win over a sizeable number of Labour MPs but has now decided that it is not possible in the foreseeable future. The prime minister has been consistent ever since that night in August 2013: he would only seek parliamentary approval if he was certain of success. In recent months, Cameron had hoped to win over a sizeable number of Labour MPs but he has now decided it is not possible in the foreseeable future.