The rebellion of 30 Tory backbenchers, together with those of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour opposition halted what appeared to be an inexorable slide towards western military involvement in Syria’s long-running and violent civil war.

1. Nick Graham, Haliford School
The vote for
(in)action over
Syria – another
watershed
moment at
Westminster?
The rebellion of 30 Tory backbenchers,
together with those of the Liberal
Democrats and the Labour opposition
halted what appeared to be an inexorable
slide towards western military
involvement in Syria’s long-running
and violent civil war.
Much has been made of it since then, it being deemed crucial on
so many levels, be they political, constitutional or geo-political.
Certainly, it was a significant moment and the kind of high political
drama that Westminster often produces. Many on the opposition
benches and in the media declared David Cameron a weak leader
unable to command the loyalty of his backbenchers. However, closer
scrutiny of Parliament’s voting behaviour over the past few decades
shows that the party of government long stopped being the
rubberstamp of the Executive’s will. Both Margaret Thatcher and
Tony Blair often failed to command the unanimous support of their
backbenchers; it was just that the sizable majorities that both
commanded obscured the fact that so many had defied the whips.
David Cameron’s thin and tenuous Commons majority exposes such
occurrences far more. Furthermore, a more informed electorate,
willing to either decline their vote or vote elsewhere and with the
means at its disposal with which to communicate a concern, have
made many MPs more attuned to their constituents’ opinions and
as a consequence far more willing to break with the party line.
What was different here though was the issue at stake, which was
the decision to take the country to war. Whether the vote heralds or
confirms a change established back in 2003 when Tony Blair took the
decision to consult Parliament before joining in the US led invasion
of Iraq, it is now possible to talk about a new constitutional convention
that has entered the framework of Parliament. Perhaps the late Robin
Cook was prophetic when he said that he “may not have succeeded
in halting the (Iraq) war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to
decide on war.” A war of choice rather than of necessity now needs
Parliamentary authorisation, as has been the case with recent decisions taken on Iraq, Libya and now Syria. The decision to put military
action to the vote of Parliament was imitated in Washington where
it also appears that consultation of the legislature prior to entry in
a war has become an established part of the constitution.
The action of putting the vote on Syria to MPs raises fundamental
questions regarding the British constitution. The outcome sheds
interesting light on the dynamics of the individual parties. Whether
it was motivated by concerns over the lack of compelling evidence as

2. Nick Graham, Haliford School
The vote for
(in)action over
Syria – another
watershed moment
at Westminster?
(continued)
it claimed or, as cynics and political opponents argued, was one of
calculated partisan advantage, the Labour Party certainly sought in
its decision to stall a rush to war in the Middle East the opportunity
to exorcise ghosts of its recent past. The shadow of what turned into
a disastrously planned military intervention in Iraq looms large over
the current Labour leadership and the decision was both an act of
political atonement as well as an attempt to reconnect itself with
grass roots voters estranged from the party since early 2003. The
motives of the Labour leadership are hard to decipher and are probably
manifold. However, it does suggest that, given that the evidence
presented to go to war in Iraq turned out to be both unreliable and
inaccurate, no current or future Prime Minister is ever likely to be
given the benefit of the doubt in the event of military action.
relations are complex, ever-changing and often shaped by a Realpolitik
sense of pragmatism. Whatever happens, it certainly seems that the
vote is one that has re-gained Parliament some much-needed kudos
amongst a public weary both of war and a seemingly unresponsive
political class detached from the ordinary concerns of the public.
It is the job of the President to guide the process along a path which
will not be anathematic to either side.
Whilst the vote reflected the internal dynamics of the Labour Party, it
also showed the growing number of isolationist MPs within the ranks
of the Tory party. A significant number of the 30 Tory MPs who voted
against military action are the same ones whose stance on issues
such as Europe is one similar or close to UKIP’s. They are marked out
by a desire to extricate Britain from all foreign entanglements where
the national interest is deemed to be absent. David Cameron’s party
is as diverse and as fractured as the one opposite in this sense.
More fundamental than the dynamics of the two main parties and
those of Parliament is what the vote suggests about how Britain sees
itself in the world. Is, as the front cover of a recent New Statesman
suggests, Britain retreating back into isolationism, free from costly
foreign entanglements and military alliances that result in drawn out
overseas ventures such as Afghanistan? Or is Britain now embracing
a multi-lateral foreign policy that pursues its goals via the UN rather
than in alliance with the US? The US administration certainly made
its feelings known when it referred to France as its oldest ally, a nod
to that country’s contribution to the outcome of the 18th century
War of Independence. This is difficult to predict as international
Questions
What is the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty?
Explain the divisions that exist within the Labour Party
over ideas and policies.
How effective is Parliament at checking the power of
the Executive?