egafd.com

The Government lost the recent vote on military action in Syria by, I think, 13 votes. A couple of Ministers didn't show up, a number of MP's abstained, and a lot voted against, but it seems certain that if the strong-arm tactics the Tory Party used to use on its back-benchers were used this time the motion would have passed no bother. I remember the Maastricht Treaty in the 1990's, you could clearly see on the TV coverage Tory whips going around the backbenches "encouraging" their MP's to vote in favour of it.

The practice of Government whipping is very undemocratic, people go to vote on something but are then told they can only vote one way. I remember the Tory Chief Whip years ago, Richard Ryder, was alleged to have taken big revenge against some Tory back benchers for not voting with the Government, stories about the private lives of some of them would appear on the front page of tabloids the following Sunday, and it was claimed Richard Ryder was behind many of these stories.

Anyway, it seems the whips were on holiday the day of the recent Syria debate. Either that or Cameron instructed them to lay off, implying he is not bothered either way whether we went in to Syria or not - as the public have no interest in another foreign campaign following the fiasco that was Iraq and what such a thing can do to a PM's reputation and legacy. The whips could have pressured the backbenchers into voting this through if they wanted to. What are people's views on why they didn't? I think it was Cameron telling them not to, for the reasons I've just outlined.

"The whips could have pressured the backbenchers into voting this through if they wanted to. What are people's views on why they didn't?"

This is incorrect. Cameron has completely lost control of his party so the idea that he could "whip this through if they wanted to" is wrong.

For example, about half his backbenchers voted against Cameron on a vote for an EU referendum. A total of 81 of Cameron's MPs voted for a Commons motion calling for a referendum on Britain?s relationship with the EU, even though the PM had ordered his party to oppose it.

The article I read said that because "call me Dave" had recalled Parliament for the vote at quite short notice, the whips didn't have time to get their act together to bully their MPs to "voted the right way".

That was the reason for Tories them losing the vote.

I also read-up on how each member of the cabinet voted.

Kenny Clarke was down as "failed to vote for logistical reasons".

What was that then? Did he get stuck in the pub?

It's interesting you say Cameron has lost control of his party, if that is so it's nowhere near as bad as the problems John Major had with it in the 1990's. They mutinied. I remember Major threatened to call a General Election if the party voted against Maastricht on the third attempt to get the Bill through the House. Major knew he would lose any such Election but said he would call it as he was so fed up and because the inner workings of the Government had broken down so profoundly. Major said years later he couldn't even hold Cabinet meetings in the way most PM's would and had, there were certain things he didn't raise because they would always get leaked to the newspapers. He couldn't even trust the people sitting around the Cabinet table. Things are not this bad for David Cameron.

David Johnson wrote:

> "The whips could have pressured the backbenchers into voting
> this through if they wanted to. What are people's views on why
> they didn't?"
>
> This is incorrect. Cameron has completely lost control of his
> party so the idea that he could "whip this through if they
> wanted to" is wrong.
>
> For example, about half his backbenchers voted against Cameron
> on a vote for an EU referendum. A total of 81 of Cameron's
> MPs voted for a Commons motion calling for a referendum on
> Britain?s relationship with the EU, even though the PM had
> ordered his party to oppose it.

Quite right. Most of the backbench MPs realise that Cameron is a busted flush and has almost no chance of winning the next election. They also do not get his obsession with "non-Conservative" policies like gay marriage, EU and involvement in Syria ? perhaps if some of them read history the word "Suez" might spring to mind.

Most, not all, MPs want a red box ? even a lowly portfolio would suit them but the whips have no power because preferment under Cameron would leave those promoted tainted the next time the Tories get in power.

..George Osborne? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rview.html

PM's will generally be able to predict how a vote will go, not down to the exact numbers, but more or less know what will happen. I think Cameron did this knowing he would likely lose, but did it to show the UK and the world that he would have been keen to go in to Syria if the House voted in favour, then when the House didn't (which he secretly hoped) he could publicly say it is for that reason we're now not going in - rather than because he personally decided not to. He has moved the blame away from himself.

Apparently Ken Clarke was away because of some family issue or other. He has missed debates before because he was busy with his business affairs aswell. I remember him missing a debate once, and getting a lot of flack for not being there, because he was abroad on business to do with his role as a Director of British-American tobacco. Ken Clarke certainly enjoys pub life, I used to work just a stones throw from Parliament Square years ago and there is a pub called The Colonies in Victoria Street which he would often frequent. I saw him several times in there on a Friday lunchtime, drinking Scotch and smoking his huge cigar.

The Tory MP's are lowering their chances of retaining their seats at the next election if they voted against for the reasons you say though. Cameron will only be returned as PM if he gets a majority and that is defined, obviously, as getting a majority of MP's. So if they think he will not win the next election it will be because many of them feel they won't be elected at the next election. If they want to retain their careers as MP's, and it looks like Cameron's presence makes that unlikely, they will have to vote for another leader who a lot of the public will like. So we might have a leadership contest occurring sometime in the next year.

There were also a lot of claims a few years ago that David Cameron took drugs when he was younger. I remember this being talked about quite a lot when he was up against David Davis for the leadership. This was the first time anyone had really heard of Cameron, he was new on the scene, and these questions were put to him several times. He always refused to answer saying these are matters to do with his past, and he wanted to focus on the present and future. I am surprised he got such an easy ride over this, most people would have the subject raised against them a lot more than he has had. It is not talked about at all nowadays.