Back in Nottingham with Lilian Greenwood

I'm back writing for the blog and back in Nottingham. So to start off the new university year here is some Nottingham politics.

Do you remember Steve Barclay's reply to my email on Syria? Well I also wrote an email to Lilian Greenwood the Labour MP for Nottingham South. This was her reply to my concerns over Syrian intervention.

I do agree with Lilian Greenwood's decision to vote against war in Syria however there is some sort of hint that this decision was more a party political than a moral. I doubt the PM was 'conceited' in going to war with Syria. He was not looking for a moment a shine but to do what he thought was right. His judgement of what is right may be criticised but that is a poor decision he will be known for and not anything to do with vanity.

Also the motion that was debated was not to decide whether to intervene in Syria or not, it was one to plan a route ahead for what could be done in Syria. The government was seeking UN backing and more information on top of what they already knew, it wasn't a declaration of war. This may have not been the Government's intentions earlier on in the week but as the mood of the people and MPs became clear the motion was changed.

Although I agree with Lilian Greenwood's decision it does smack of lacking personal judgement on Syria and more following Ed Miliband's poor arguments and party political play over a decision of consciousness. I think the way Red Ed conducted himself in the vote was not at all proper and that showed in polling afterwards. I'm not suprised though that Lilian Greenwood has backed this. She is a shadow minister and so for a job will follow this stupid man over an electoral cliff. I'm just disappointed.

Lilian Greenwood is pretty close to Red Ed, which is a shame.

This is just one of the reasons why I ask the good people of Nottingham South to ditch Labour and back Rowena Holland (the Conservative Candidate) who now is on twitter @VoteRowena . Rowena stood for the Conservatives in 2010 and received a big swing of 7.4% away from Labour due to her hard work and ability to listen to the people. Let's see if we can make Nottingham South blue this time around.

Rowena out and about campaigning for a better Nottingham South.

Steve Barclay Responds

Do you remember me writing to my MP, Steve Barclay, about Syria (if not jog your memory and look at http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/dear-steve-barclay-mp-re-syria.html). Well he has officially responded and here is what he had to say.

Dear Elliot

It was good to see you in the office earlier in the week [I got leaflets from the office for the March North by-election (see http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/leafleting-in-march-north.html)].  You recently wrote to me on the issue of Syria.

The Government motion to Parliament – which you can read on the House of Commons website - made clear that the UK would not militarily intervene in Syria without a second vote in the House of Commons, until the United Nations weapons inspectors had reported, and not before the United Nations security council had held further discussions.

I have reservations about the benefit of UK military action in Syria.  However, no such commitment was made by this motion.

I supported the motion which clearly condemned the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, killing so many people on 21st August 2013.

Parliament voted to reject the Government motion, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will respect this decision.

Tony Blair misled Parliament in the run up to the Iraq War by falsely representing intelligence reports.  That legacy shapes public opinion today on Syria.

The Prime Minister as a matter of personal conviction, believes Britain should intervene to protect the taboo regarding the use of chemical weapons.  David Cameron deserves credit for listening to Parliament and public opinion, and responding to it.

Kind regards,

Steve

I don't disagree with what Steve Braclay says and the way he voted last Thursday. Personally if I was an MP, like other anti-war Conservatives,  I would have voted with the Government. Its pretty hard to vote against a Bill that says Assad is a nasty man and we're taking this to the UN. But as a debate, it was taken to be a vote to go to war in principle and because so it failed.

But the fact that Steve is dubious of intervening in Syria is quite telling for those who want another vote on going to war. Even with Ed Miliband's support I doubt such a motion would pass. Lots more Conservative MPs will vote against the Government and the majority of Labour still will.

 Steve Barclay in da House.

Weekly Poll Lowdown

Well it seems again that the voters in the #ThingsElliottSays poll are broadly representative of the nation. Just over 2/3rd of you don't want any form of intervention to take place in Syria with the remainder who favoured war preferring a No Fly Zone to be present. You may ask why I did not include a tactical strike by missiles as a punitive measure? The reason for this is that the missile idea was not at all publicly on the table till around Wednesday morning, indeed there was discussion of troops on the ground as a plausible move by Western Governments.

What is to be done in Syria?

We can't do anything more without causing more harm.	68%
We should supply weapons to the Syrian Opposition.	5%
We should set up a No Fly Zone.	23%
We should put troops on the ground.	5%

Total votes: 22

My views on Syria is quite strong and it is that we should not get involved in a situation where we could not meet any of our objectives and make the conflict worse. But considering our decision not to intervene has already been settled and that I have talked about the intervention itself till the cows came home I will not touch upon it again at this time. What is interesting now is what is going on in the United States. 

 Are the US going to war with Syria?

Looming war with Syria arose because President Obama said on the 20th August last year to a journalist, after some erring, "A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." This on the spot arbitrary decision without any consultation made by President Obama is example of the terrible foreign policy which we have witnessed during his time in office. 

Let's just say Obama hasn't been great with Foreign Policy, especially in the Middle East.

No wonder that this rather peculiar few sentences from the President has caused so much chaos in his government for we have been constantly unsure of whether the US is going to go to war or not. This whole week we have been waiting for imminent missile strikes by the USA, yet this hasn't taken place. Because of this we get John Kerry, who is a terrible Secretary of State, saying there are "decisions that must now be made" on Syrian Intervention. Then the next day we get a softening feeling from the President on intervention. 

Do you remember John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Elections? I do, just. He ran his campaign as being against the war in Iraq however he had voted for it several times and then conveniently changed his mind when chosen as candidate.

Obama is either too weak to decide or too weak to control his government. It is likely that both of these are happening. Obama has shown weakness before in deciding foreign policy, just look at Libya where the US barley fired the odd cruise missile yet were supposed to be running the whole operation. Also, senior Pentagon people are not at all keen to fire a single bullet into Syria for the strategic mess which it would create. These people are fighting their corner and the President isn't doing well in fighting his.

The Republicans, rightly, and often use this phrase to describe Obama. Who do I use this phrase for? Comment below and the correct answers receive a prize of pride in knowing.

But at last now Obama is letting Congress take the decision of whether to go to war or not. I think this is about time as this is the only appropriate constitutional way for the US government to take military action. It is good in a democracy for the people's representatives to discuss and debate issues especially ones as serious as going to war, taking full account of what their constituents feel. Also they will be able to decide exactly what the approach should be, unlike the President himself. We'll just have to keep watching Congress. 

 It is now up to Congress to decide to go to war, as it should be.

Chaotic, ill-thought out, and weak seems to be the watchword of President Obama's foreign policy, or indeed President Obama himself. I'm a great advocate of the US-UK alliance, it's one that has worked very well before. But I am no advocate of blindly following a President of such a low calibre as Obama. Bring on the 2016 elections. 

Vote in the New Poll on the Sidebar.

The Noes Have It- What Next?

So Dave lost the vote in the House of Commons. What does this mean for the future of the 'Speacial Relationship', Red Ed, Parliament, David Cameron and of course Syria?

Is the 'Special Relationship' over, as Menzies (what an odd spelling) Campbell essentially said to the news. Well Menzies is quite mad and he can keep dreaming on. On foreign policy we have had several major gulfs with the Americans and yet we're still allies. At Suez the Americans sided with Russia over our invasion of the Sinai. In Vietnam we refused to help America, also the French helped the Americans. During the Falklands America didn't want to give any support because Argentina was an ally against Communists in South America. We have differed a number of times and yet we have always been pretty close. What will happen is a lot of shouting behind closed doors at most and nothing else.

Menzies Campbell speaking out of his arse for not the first time.

If our Special Relationship is coming under strain it's because of President Obama. This is the man who waged war against British Petroleum (not the name of BP). Hates the UK because his links to Kenya and the oppression we used there, of course forgetting that the side he takes in the Mao Mao Rebellion was far worse in killing people. This is also the President who has worst foreign policy ideas of any American President since time in memoriam, this whole debacle on Syria shows that up clearly. Even he is having problems in America about this, 50% of the US public oppose action in Syria. Congress is screaming to have a debate on this issue, but unfortunately for them the President has more executive powers. Obama is weary however and now looks like he is stalling on Syria. It's not just the British, he shouldn't have set the red line of chemical weapons.

 President Obama has messed this Syria issue up so much, i'd resign if I was him.

And speaking of the Executive, this was the day when the UK PM lost the ability to go to war without the consent of Parliament unless it is in defence of the realm or needed action at very short notice. This is a good thing, the fact that Parliament (which is elected by the people) can decide when to go to war is a sign of a healthy democracy. David Cameron wants this too saying in 2006 'the Crown Prerogative — that constitutional quirk that gives whoever is in No 10 the powers of a medieval monarch — needs to be changed.' His respect for Parliament last night showed that the Prime Minister was prepared to do what the demos thinks and not what he believed to be right. The people, or more strictly their representatives, are right. Those MPs who were pushing for a recall deserve a good deal of praise because this is about the only historical thing that has come from this vote.

 Parliament is Sovereign.

There were many good speeches in Parliament but remember one well. George Galloway lied when he said that he did not say Israel supplied the chemicals for the Syrian sarin attack (see  http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/george-galloway-blames-israel-for-syria.html). I hope this disgraceful man is kicked by the electorate at the General Election, his views are disgusting.

What of the leader of Labour, Red Ed? Was he and Labour being party political? Yes. The calls to resign from the PM and Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary saying, how much this was a defeat for David Cameron because Tory MPs rebelled against him show this. But Red Ed didn't have much of a choice actually because of his own party pulling at him. If he had supported the Government motion last night it may have gone through, but this wouldn't have been the case next week. The majority of Labour MPs would not support going to war over Syria and combined with the 80+ Conservatives who do not agree with arming the rebels there would have been no majority for war. Red Ed after a summer of disconnect would have not wanted to look weak or ask MPs to back something they vehemently opposed, especially after threats of his leadership. 

 Ed during the debate.

Does this do anything for him? Well his celebrations last night were very over the top because if he tries to make David Cameron look weak by rubbing his face in this defeat he's going to find himself on the most dodgy of grounds because he is making fun over an act of war and the deaths of Syrian civilians. It will be very bad for him if does that. Red Ed has however shown he can advert political disaster which does show some political skills. But overall Ed must stay quiet and not make any gains after this Government defeat. 

David Cameron may have suffered government defeat but in factual senses this shouldn't affect his Government or leadership. This was a vote to go to war, not on government internal policy. Conservative MPs voted with their conscious against the Government because they don't agree with war, they will still support government bills. He also respected Parliament's decision greatly. 'I get that' David Cameron said just moments after the results of the vote was read out. 

But in reality Dave will face damage because nobody wanted this war in the public and he did. His sense of what is actually the right thing to do is clearly a little bit off. His short term rush and lack of political shrewdness is shown, at least he bears this collectively with the government. He must not however go around blaming the opposition for his defeat or saying 'they're a succour to Assad'. The best action is to keep calm and carry on. Hopefully he thinks things through better next time because this was  a bad decision for Syrians to go to war (see http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/war-with-syria-was-bad-idea-thats-why.html).

For the people of Syria there is no relief however because, although a little bit less now Parliament has not backed war, the US could start an attack over the weekend. The striking of missiles is not the greatest worry in itself for the Syrian people. The after results of retaliation by Assad, from an increasing involvement in Iran and more Islamists flocking to the area is going to make their lives shorter and worse. Because of the chaotic state of the opposition diplomacy and aid are the best ways to stop the killing and obtain a better Syria.

I thus urge you to donate to the Syrian Crisis Appeal. I've made a donation to the British Red Cross to make sure they save more lives in the area. I've also collected a lot of charity links so you get wider choice in who you give your money to. If anything good comes out of this debate it is the exposure to the UK again of how terrible it is for the people of Syria. 2 million people are refugees (1 million are children), 100,000 have died and the majority of people are unable to even feed themselves. It's all very upsetting and sad. War would not help Syria but it doesn't stop us giving help to this war torn country. 

Please Donate.

British Red Cross http://www.redcross.org.uk/Donate-Now/Make-a-single-donation/Syria-Crisis-Appeal

Disasters Emergency Committee http://www.dec.org.uk/node/3181

Save The Children http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/emergencies/syria-appeal

Oxfam http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/emergency-response/syria-crisis

Action Aid http://www.actionaid.org.uk/donate/syria-crisis-appeal

UNICEF UK http://www.unicef.org.uk/landing-pages/donate-syria/

UNHCR http://donate.unhcr.org/syria

Islamic Relief http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/current-appeals/syria-appeal/

War With Syria was a Bad Idea - That's Why the Government Lost

Conservative MPs Who Voted Against the Government Motion

David Amess
Steve Baker
Richard Bacon
John Baron
Andrew Bingham
Crispin Blunt
Fiona Bruce
Tracey Crouch
David TC Davies
Philip Davies
David Davis
Nick de Bois
Richard Drax
Gordon Henderson
Philip Hollobone
Adam Holloway
Dr Phillip Lee
Dr Julian Lewis
Tim Loughton
Jason McCartney
Nigel Mills
Anne Marie Morris
Andrew Percy
Sir Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Andrew Turner
Martin Vickers
Charles Walker
Chris White
Dr Sarah Wollaston

Conservative MPs Who Abstained on the Government Motion

Adam Afriyie
Henry Bellingham
Graham Brady
William Cash
Christopher Chope
Kenneth Clarke
Geoffrey Cox
Nadine Dorries
Alan Duncan
David Gauke
Justine Greening
Alan Haselhurst
Chris Kelly
Pauline Latham
Edward Leigh
Charlotte Leslie
Ian Liddell-Grainger
Jack Lopresti
Anne Main
Patrick Mercer
Jesse Norman
James Paice
Priti Patel
John Redwood
Andrew Rosindell
David Ruffley
Mark Simmonds
Rory Stewart
David Tredinnick
Andrew Tyrie
Bill Wiggin
Tim Yeo

Last Night the Government lost a motion on Syria by 13 votes, even though it didn't sanction military action. What the motion did was back the Government's legal position for going to war and in principle agree to it. Yet the Government couldn't even win this. Above is the list of Conservative MPs who voted against the motion and those who abstained (some of those who abstained are missing government ministers and some are ill). This was not because of  the spectre of Iraq or that it's not in the British Interest. The Government lost because this was clearly the worst idea ever.

Normally I'm pretty pro intervention. I was in full support of what happened in Libya because we allowed the Libyan people to get rid of a brutal tyrant and get them started on the path to democracy. Not everything is perfect in Libya at the moment but there is a democratic government which is starting to assert itself. People who would normally back intervention to save civilians lives and to allow a democracy in Libya did not back last night's motion in the Conservative Party and that is why the Government lost.

 Libya was a success, despite some problems afterwards. The only people who really regret toppling Gaddafi are George Galloway and the Russians who passed the UN motion.

Despite convincing hard-line sceptics like Douglas Carswell and Cheryl Gillian to vote with the Government David Cameron still lost this vote. And this was not the usual ground of Dr Sarah Wollaston either. The Noes on their side had MPs who you would not expect in this lobby. The abstentions are even more surprising. If we miss out the odd story of Justine Greening not hearing the division bell, you can see Adam Afriyrie and Jesse Norman not voting for the Government. Why did this happen?

 You know you have problems when those you would expect to back the Bill do not.

It wasn't to do with Iraq. For sure there were a lot of mentions of it but they came mostly from the Labour side. Labour has a problem with Iraq because they are of a mind set not to agree to intervention. Yet when Labour MPs sat on the government benches their own Prime Minister pushed for war and lied in the process. As a result they got a hammering in the polls of 2005. Speak to a Labour MP for a short time and Oona King will soon come up. Many of the electorate were also wary about Syria because of Iraq but in whole probably no more than in Libya. 74% of voters is such a huge number that it was clearly not Iraq which decided for them not to back Syria intervention. 

  Iraq caused a big problem for the Left but the facts caused a problem for the Conservatives.

David Cameron lost last night because, probably a lot like me, Conservative MPs could see this was going to be a disaster based on all the facts of Syria. A country where we would have to engage in a 3 way war. A country where we risked causing massive tensions with Iran and Russia. A country where there was no chance of bringing about a democracy. A country where we could quite clearly make no difference, or maybe make things worse, in saving civilian lives. A country where we were rushing over a short time to start action with little preparation. And also a country where our military chiefs said the most likely outcome for the UK would be defeat. This wasn't like Iraq at all, it was clearly much more complicated and much worse to get involved with.

I simply cannot believe that David Cameron, and William Hague too (who will be a bit nervous now so close to a reshuffle), thought that he could carry his party when all the facts went against him. I wasn't expecting Government defeat last night, but most sensible people knew that, with 80 Tory MPs against arming the rebels earlier this year, there was no way he was going to get Parliament to vote for war. What clearly happened was that David Cameron had decided to go to war perhaps even a year before, he had been swayed by all the graphic images we were seeing on our TV.

 William Hague has lost most of his credibility as a top rate statesman after the Syrian issues.

What Assad is doing is horrible beyond belief but if the PM hadn't allowed his heart to take over all logical thinking he wouldn't have lost a vote. With all the information at his disposal he should have known better than everyone that the facts showed we were unable to help and most likely we would make things worse. 

I'm going to follow this up with another post later about what has actually come of this vote.

Pause For Thought With Syria

We should be careful before we get involved in Syria. It doesn't matter if the UK launches 1 missile, 100 missiles or even put troops on the ground in Syria we would be making a political statement as well as a physical attack against a Russian and Iranian backed regime. Furthermore what will Syria do in response? What will happen to Israel and Iraq? War looms and the only thing we can be sure about in its size is that it will be much more than the few missiles some people in the Government are talking about.

Life of a (Conservative) Student Part 5

I'm back on Conservative Student for a special post. This one is about Syria and about countering all the stupid reasons for why 'WE MUST GO TO WAR'. It's quite simple really, none of these arguments make a great deal of sense when considering what a mess Syria is is. You will also see that this article was written before the motion tabled for today's debate in the House of Commons was released. We are not going to war today, but probably next week. To read the article here.

Breaking News: Full Syria Motion Revealled by the Government

The motion for tomorrow's debate is:

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 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 that 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.

Essentially this is permission to use military action against Syria's chemical Weapons but this will only come after the UN has done all that it can. When that has passed there would be another vote that may ignore what the UN says anyway. It's delayed Syrian intervention however, so perhaps a small victory. Keep writing your MPs to tell them not to vote for this motion here.

Write to Your MP About Syria

The Columnist Peter Hitchens on his blog yesterday said that we need to write to our MPs in order to try stop intervention in Syria (see http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/please-do-what-you-can-now-to-halt-this-rush-to-war.html). It is unclear at this moment whether the Parliamentary vote for intervention will pass on Thursday because there is so much opposition on both sides of the House. I have already written to my MP Steve Barcaly urging him to vote against the motion and some people, when they saw this, asked me to write them a template email. I thought it a good idea to share you this template and urge you to write to your MP to ask them not to vote for military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.

 'Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War' says Peter Hitchens.

I'm not a technical superstar and I don't know how to do one of those jazzie websites where you can contact your MP. What I suggest you do is copy the text below and then go to http://www.writetothem.com/ where in less than two clicks you can find your MP and fill in the email message box with the text. It is a good idea to make your message more personal and add some sentences or more reasons why we should not intervene in Syria.

Please do this, the more emails your MP the receives the better informed he will be in the vote. Also Please share/tweet this around so more people can write to their MPs. Thanks.

Template Email

I write to you with concern over the trajectory that the British government is taking us over Syria. It seems inevitable that soon the Government will be moving to war against the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. I ask you to vote against any military intervention in the Syrian Civil that the government will propose in the Parliamentary debate on Thursday. There are many reason why we should not back military intervention in Syria but the most compelling is that our objectives are unclear and also will be unsuccessful.

If our objective is to protect Syrian civilians we are likely to fail. This war even if we intervene is likely to take a long time and cost many more lives. It has already cruelly killed 100,000 people before the chemical attack our action will not stop more deaths. Moreover, if our actions do not allow Assad to be defeated then he will brutally oppress anyone who he thought had any connection to the Syrian Opposition. On the other hand a Syrian Opposition victory would see an equally bloody fight for control of the government, this will be at best this will be mass civil violence at worst another civil war

Furthermore any intervention will escalate tensions causing more sad deaths across the region because the Syrian Civil War is also a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both these states are waging a war that has already spilt into Iraq and Lebanon, with a high increase of deaths in these countries. This will become much worse if the West intervenes as Iran is likely to attack our NATO ally Turkey and other friendly states in the region. The United Kingdom would also be under increased attack from terrorist forces from the Iranians.

If our intention is to bring about democracy in Syria our intervention in the country certainly will not help. If we were to intervene in Syria we would have to be more hands on politically and create the democracy there. This would lead to greater alienation from the Syrian people because the country is such a broad mix in opinions, many sceptical of the West and the Opposition. The Opposition itself is made up of a mix containing a minority of liberals and a majority of Islamists who spurn a democratic government in favour of an Islamic state. Should we chance democracy in Syria by backing Islamism? Islamism has been allowed to take control because of the lack of organisation in the Opposition. This lack of organisation is also leading to Assad having the upper hand in the conflict.

The only feasible way Syria can become a democracy is through a reorganisation of the Syrian Opposition to clearly define whether a post Assad government would be a liberal democracy or an Islamic dictatorship. The Syrian people can thus make a better decision on whether to back the opposition. If the Syrian Opposition chooses liberal democracy the Syrians will more so choose to support the Opposition and thus lead to a more likely downfall of Assad. The only way for a stable democracy to be formed in Syria is for her people to choose to accept it and for them to fight for it.

There is thus a strong moral cause against war in Syria. We will not save anymore civilian lives and we will not bring about democracy; indeed, our intervention is likely to kill more and stop democracy. This is clear in the minds of the British People too as only 9% of the public support our military action and only 16% support arming the Opposition. I appreciate that many MPs do not decide whether they are to vote for a proposed motion until they have seen it written on the order paper. But I hope that you will side with me and not vote for British militarily intervention in the Syrian conflict.

I look forward to your speedy reply.