Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[Sheilbh]

Here's Notts Politics blog on it from before the vote:

Why the outcome of the Commons vote on Syria is difficult to predict

It wouldn't take long to describe parliamentary rebellions on British military action so far this parliament. There have only been four Coalition revolts, over three issues: continued British military involvement in Afghanistan in September 2010; whether or not to support UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (on Libya) in March 2011; and the wisdom or otherwise of ruling out military action against Iran in February 2012. Two of these three were debated under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, with Libya debated on the basis of a substantive Government motion. But the largest of these rebellions involved just four Conservative MPs and one Lib Dem, and in total across all three issues, just eight Coalition MPs have broken ranks on matters of war and peace, six Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. So we can be confident that whatever happens tonight we will be able to say that it is the largest rebellion of its type during this Parliament.

The crucial difference with these votes and tonight's is that they all saw the Labour frontbench support the government, as Her Majesty's Official Opposition have in every other vote on military action since Suez in 1956. That the Government cannot rely on Labour support tonight is one reason why the outcome of the votes is so uncertain.

But it is only half of the explanation. The other half is the potential scale of backbench rebellion on the government side. This is a government with a de facto majority of around 80; even without opposition support it should not be in this position. Its difficulties are emphatically not a result of being a coalition. Whilst there will be some Lib Dem opponents, this is not a vote like that over parliamentary boundaries where the Lib Dems will defect en masse. The government's problems are as much with Conservative backbench opponents, of whom there are said to be around 70.

This is just the latest piece of evidence of the steady rise of backbench independence, which we have been tracking over the last decade or more. It did not begin in 2010 – there were plenty of signs of it in both the 2001 and 2005 Parliaments – but there has been a further step change up in the levels of independence being displayed by MPs since the last election. This is a parliament that has seen MPs vote to amend their own government's Queen's Speech. Now they are willing to do the same to its foreign policy. This is parliamentary influence, for good or ill.

That said, we are equally confident that today's rebellions will not top the record set by the Iraq revolts of 2003. Those are the largest rebellions by government MPs of any party, on any subject, since modern British politics began. The largest saw 139 Labour MPs vote against their party's whip. But note that they did not start at 139. The first three rebellions over Iraq numbered 56, 30, and 44 respectively, only rising over 100 in votes in February and then March 2003 on the eve of war. Those early votes saw plenty of MPs express their unhappiness with the idea of military action without voting against their whip. Given that today's vote is explicitly not one to authorise military action, we expect the same today, with MPs uneasy or unhappy taking the opportunity to make it clear how unhappy they are without actually voting against their party.

Will the government lose? Bluntly: they shouldn't. The fact that this is not a vote to authorise conflict will be enough to placate some government MPs, even some with serious reservations. Then there is the fact that there are two votes tonight, one on a Labour amendment, one on the government's own motion.[/i] This gives the whips some room for manoeuvre, with some MPs rebelling over the government motion, others over Labour's amendment, but with each individual revolt smaller than the total number of rebels. Plus, if the issue becomes partisan – as it appears to be doing – that too will make some Conservative MPs uneasy about doing anything to help the opposition. But no one would put much money on a government victory, given events thus far this Parliament.

And if they do lose? When was the last time that happened? That is, as they say, a very good question. We struggle to find a vote lost by the government on military action any time in the last 100 years. For all that people go on about Norway in 1940 or Suez in 1956, the government won both of those votes. The former was enough to bring down a Prime Minister, but the government did still win the vote. We cannot find a comparable vote lost by a government, although our knowledge of the mid-nineteenth century isn't what it was...

Iraq aside, most recent rebellions over military foreign policy, especially on the government side, have been small. Rebellions on the Iraq bombing of 1998 were small (just 22 Government MPs); ditto for Kosovo in 1999 (13) and Afghanistan in 2001 (11). There were some half-decent sized-rebellions amongst Opposition MPs against the first Iraq war in 1990-91, but not amongst government MPs. Iraq is very much the exception.

We suspect tonight's rebellion will surpass these, but fall short of the 139 Iraq rebels. So perhaps the key remaining benchmark is with the vote in 1940, which brought down Neville Chamberlain, when 33 Conservative MPs voted against the Government, together with at least 60 who abstained. If tonight's rebellion is of that magnitude, the vote will be very tight indeed.

The Conservative vote against Cameron tonight was definitely bigger than the government rebellion against Chamberlain

[Sheilbh]

But you're assuming an all or nothing variable.  I.e. if a country bluffs and gets called once, then the future value of their threats drops to zero.  That is not the critique of bluffing.  Rather that bluffs tend to cause antagonists to discount the value of a threat.   In situations when you want to communicate "you really better not use chemical weapons or we will blow up you and your shit with 100% certainty," bluffs cause that threat to devalue to a lower probability.

Not really. I'm saying the USSR did it repeatedly. Empty threats were a fundamental part of their foreign policy. They never lost credibility when they didn't follow through, because their power was sufficient that any threat is credible. The same is true for the US. I think stating specific steps rather than a general threat would increase credibility rather than just threatening, more seriously.

I don't disagree that credibility is not a very strong argument for taking an action that could have such large downsides. I don't know that going to war because Assad is not using our preferred weapons system to slaughter his own people is a much better argument.

Going to war's a strong phrase for lobbing a few missiles at their military systems.

Chemical and biological warfare have been viewed with a unique horror since WW1. I think it's a good principle when, as Rupert Smith put it, we're sort of in an era of 'war amongst the people', to have certain weapons that are beyond use.

[mongers]

Some good comments there Shelf.

Yes the apparent triumphing of a parliamentary vote on military action over the royal prerogative is very significant.

I haven't seen the figures yet, but on the government motion didn't something like 70-75 MPs not vote or abstain ?

My own take on this is the hangover from Iraq and to a lesser extent the apparent failure in Afghanistan, directed much of the MPs debate and voting.

[CountDeMoney]

Weenies.

[Razgovory]

I think Shelf is right here.  Obama is going to act, not because US credibility is on the line, but his credibility is.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently the last time a PM's recommendation to use force was rejected by Parliament was in 1782

That was when the Prime Minister wanted to continue in the American War of Independence and the Commons rejected it

[mongers]

Weenies.

It's democracy.

[CountDeMoney]

Weenies.

It's democracy.

That's a shitty excuse, and you know it.   

[Ed Anger]

Weenies.

It's democracy.

It's getting in the way of my boners.

[Admiral Yi]

Not really. I'm saying the USSR did it repeatedly. Empty threats were a fundamental part of their foreign policy. They never lost credibility when they didn't follow through, because their power was sufficient that any threat is credible. The same is true for the US. I think stating specific steps rather than a general threat would increase credibility rather than just threatening, more seriously.

My previous post was garbled. What I meant to say is that you're setting up zero credibility following a called bluff as the null hypothesis, and since the USSR had more than zero credibility after a (or repeated) called bluffs, then having one's bluff called has no impact on credibility.  This is incorrect. 

Take as an example North Korea.  Their entire foreign policy is built on bluffing.  So when they make a threat, people tend to not take it very seriously.

[Sheilbh]

Weenies.

It's unbelievable

There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in

Don't know that this'll play well for Labour in the long-run either.

[mongers]

Weenies.

It's democracy.

It's getting in the way of my boners.

Don't see that, Obama is bound to carry on, just without a token dozen British missiles.

[Sheilbh]

Take as an example North Korea.  Their entire foreign policy is built on bluffing.  So when they make a threat, people tend to not take it very seriously.

Agreed. But I'd argue that's a function of their power, not their credibility.

[DGuller]

Weenies.

It's democracy.

Democracy is no excuse for chaos.  In matters of war the whole country should be united.

[Razgovory]

Weenies.

It's unbelievable

There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in

Don't know that this'll play well for Labour in the long-run either.

Curious isn't it?