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/world/2013/aug/29/syria-debate-david-cameron-ed-miliband

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Syria debate: David Cameron wins back momentum from Ed Miliband Syria debate: David Cameron wins back momentum from Ed Miliband
(about 1 hour later)
It is a rule of thumb in parliament that prime ministers risk demeaning themselves if they interrupt the leader of opposition when they are in mid flow across the dispatch box. David Cameron
It is a rule of thumb in parliament that prime ministers risk demeaning themselves if they interrupt the leader of opposition when they are in mid-flow across the dispatch box.
But David Cameron created a decisive moment in his favour on Thursday when he interrupted Ed Miliband after the Labour leader claimed that the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, had delivered a qualified judgment on the legality of military action.But David Cameron created a decisive moment in his favour on Thursday when he interrupted Ed Miliband after the Labour leader claimed that the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, had delivered a qualified judgment on the legality of military action.
The prime minister stood up, politely agreed with Miliband that Grieve had said that three conditions needed to be met and then delivered the killer line by saying that the attorney general had concluded: "All three conditions would clearly be met in this case."The prime minister stood up, politely agreed with Miliband that Grieve had said that three conditions needed to be met and then delivered the killer line by saying that the attorney general had concluded: "All three conditions would clearly be met in this case."
From that moment Miliband appeared to lose the sympathy of many Tory MPs who had been willing to give him a serious hearing after his interventions in the week which have slowed down, and possibly blocked, British involvement in a military strike against the Assad regime. "It felt a bit like a nice country lawyer being sliced up by a big city lawyer," one minister said. From that moment Miliband appeared to lose the sympathy of many Tory MPs who had been willing to give him a serious hearing after his interventions in the week which have slowed down, and possibly blocked, British involvement in a military strike against the Assad regime.
The prime minister, who had lost control of events this week after Miliband forced him to agree to a second parliamentary vote before military action is launched, needed to achieve three goals in his statement. He needed to undermine Miliband; he needed to win over Tory MPs, who have been dismayed at the complacency in No 10, by making a serious case in favour of military action; and he needed to acknowledge that the case for force is a nuanced one. "It felt a bit like a nice country lawyer being sliced up by a big city lawyer," one minister said.
Cameron achieved successes on all fronts. He rejected the Labour amendment out of hand by saying that, while it had many commendable features, it failed to mention that the deaths on 21 August east of Damascus were caused by chemical weapons even though "this fact is accepted by almost everyone across the world". Second, the Labour motion did "not even begin" to link the Assad regime to the attack, putting it at odds with Nato, Barack Obama and the Arab League. The prime minister, who had lost control of events this week after Miliband forced him to agree to a second parliamentary vote before military action is launched, needed to achieve three goals in his statement.
The prime minister, who has been criticised by Tories for failing to go on to the front foot on Syria, at last started to make a powerful case for action when his voice cracked as he spoke of the appalling video images of children killed in the chemical attack. He warned that Assad would use such weapons again and again if no action were taken, though he admitted that there could be no absolute certainty of Assad's culpability when he said there could be no smoking gun piece of intelligence. He needed to undermine Miliband; he needed to win over Tory MPs, who have been dismayed at the complacency in No 10, by making a serious case in favour of military action; and he needed to acknowledge that the case for force is a nuanced one.
As Tory MPs cheered on the prime minister, there were signs that he had won over at least some Tory sceptics. James Arbuthnot, the chairman of the Commons defence select committee, said he would change his mind and support the government. Cameron achieved successes on all fronts. He rejected the Labour amendment out of hand by saying that, while it had many commendable features, it failed to mention that the deaths on 21 August east of Damascus were caused by chemical weapons even though "this fact is accepted by almost everyone across the world".
Second, the Labour motion did "not even begin" to link the Assad regime to the attack, putting it at odds with Nato, Barack Obama and the Arab League.
The prime minister, who has been criticised by Tories for failing to go on to the front foot on Syria, at last started to make a powerful case for action when his voice cracked as he spoke of the appalling video images of children killed in the chemical attack.
He warned that Assad would use such weapons again and again if no action were taken, though he admitted there could be no absolute certainty of Assad's culpability when he said there could be no smoking gun piece of intelligence.
As Tory MPs cheered him on there were signs he had won over at least some sceptics. James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence select committee, said he would change his mind and support the government.
Ed Miliband
The most prized asset for a political leader is momentum.
Ed Miliband went into the debate with the wind in his sails after hounding David Cameron on Syria over 48 hours.
But by the time he sat down the Labour leader had failed to score any decisive wins or build on the progress he had developed in the week after he forced the prime minister to concede a second vote to authorise military action.
Miliband had one decisive advantage in the debate. Unlike Cameron, who voted in favour of the Iraq war in 2003, he was not an MP at the time and has repeatedly said that the legacy of the conflict has been to alienate voters from the political class.
The Labour leader said the "lessons of Iraq" explained the need to show respect for the UN. He even had a good dig at Nick Clegg who called, in a joint meeting with him and Cameron, for a "UN moment".
Miliband said: "It cannot be seen as some sideshow or some 'moment', but is an essential part of building the case, if intervention takes place."
But the role of the UN ended up highlighting one of the weaknesses in Miliband's strategy. The government motion echoes Labour's amendment on two fronts in relation to the UN – it calls for its weapons inspectors to brief the UN security council and calls for "every effort" to ensure that it holds a vote before military action.
It took Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Conservative former foreign secretary who is chairman of parliament's intelligence and security committee, to highlight this weakness in the Labour case.
He said: "The leader of the opposition has said that he might be able to support military action of the kind that the government are contemplating.
"He has put in his amendment a list of the requirements, virtually all of which, as far as I can tell, appear in the government's own motion."
Tory MPs mocked the Labour leader as he replied that he would develop his case, arguing that the government had failed to demonstrate that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack.
But Miliband will probably ponder one of the lessons of his mentor, former prime minister Gordon Brown, that successful politicians draw up dividing lines with their opponents.
To be successful, though, these have to be clear and distinctive and with few nuances.
Over the next 48 hours Miliband will have to decide whether he will deepen or end his dividing line with the prime minister by rejecting or supporting British military involvement in Syria.
His decision could go well beyond an opposition leader scoring a few points: it could be the decisive factor in deciding whether or not Britain joins forces with the US and other European partners in attacking Syria.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.