What Britain national newspapers thought of the
commons vote against a military strike on Syria.
National newspapers were swift to react to the
commons vote against taking military action in Syria,
changing late print editions to run new splashes and
comment. The front page headlines make uncomfortable reading
for prime minister David "I get that" Cameron. Every
title refers to him being humiliated and that his
authority has been diminished. Tory-supporting titles were noticeably critical. "The humbling of Cameron", said the Daily Mail. "No to war, blow to Cameron", said the Daily Telegraph. "CAM DOWN: PM humiliated as MPs say NO to military
strikes", said the Sun. And the Times headline
underscored the same message: "Cameron humiliated as MPs veto missile strikes on Syria".
"Shock commons defeat", said the Daily Express in a
page 1 blurb pointing to a piece inside headlined: "Cameron rocked as MPs say no to air strikes against
Syria." The paper also carried the result of an online opinion
poll recording that a majority of the public were
against military action. A similar message was delivered by the non-Tory
press: "We don't want your war" , said the Daily Mirror. "MPs force Cameron to rule out British assault on
Syria", said the Guardian. The Financial Times's splash heading said: "US ready to act alone as MPs reject Syria strike: Embarrassing vote defeat for Cameron". The Independent's main headline, "A tale of two
wars", was rather odd, but the sub-deck said: "PM
suffers dramatic commons defeat as Labour hardens
opposition to air strikes". And the freely distributed
Metro's front page said: "Cameron defeated on Syria
air strikes". The Telegraph's leader, "A nation haunted by mistakes of the past", said it was the Iraq war that poisoned Cameron's authority. Memories of being
taken to war on a false prospectus, mentioned by the
PM during his speech, played an overriding part in the
rejection of his call for military action. Though the paper thought the commons performance
of Cameron better than that of Ed Miliband it conceded
the nation owed the Labour leader a debt "for the
political manoeuvrings that delayed any hasty
decision on military action." It concluded: "The resulting vote leaves both British
policy on Syria, and Mr Cameron's own leadership,
mired in the deepest uncertainty."
The Telegraph also carried a piece by Fraser Nelson,
editor of The Spectator, "David Cameron failed the test of trust, and paid the price" , in which he wrote: "British prime ministers are just not supposed to
lose votes on issues as fundamental as war and
peace. This represents not just an extraordinary
defeat, but a catastrophic political misjudgment." The Guardian's leading article saw it as victory for
parliament: "The government was prevented from
mounting a premature and foolish attack on Syria
because it could not muster enough votes to support
it. Parliament, in other words, did its job when it mattered." It spoke of Cameron as "the principal loser" who,
despite a "a polished performance", lost control of a
key issue of foreign policy and therefore suffered "an
almost unprecedented failure." It praised Miliband for "insisting that Britain holds to
the line of proper process and law", adding that
"Cameron's readiness to change his approach should
be noted too. Both of them have learned some lessons
from 2003." The Times, which favoured intervention, said the vote
was a disaster: "It was a disaster for the prime minister who
misjudged his party. It was a disaster for the
country, which turned its back on its tradition of
standing up to tyranny. It was a disaster for the
western alliance, split apart by British failure to
stand with its allies. And most important of all, it was a disaster for the
people of Syria, who know that they have fewer
friends in their hour of need." But the Times thought "the only crumb of comfort is
that the vote will not have stopped western action
altogether" because the US may act alone. And it
concluded: "Military strikes to deter the Assad regime from
further use of chemical weapons and limit its
ability to deploy them would not preclude
continued diplomatic efforts. At best they could
even force it to negotiate. There are many worse scenarios, including
retaliation by Iran against Israel, but the worst at
this bleak juncture is for America to send the clear
message that its warnings mean nothing." The Mail's opening sentence to its front page news
story said that Cameron's "authority in parliament and
on the world stage was dealt an unprecedented blow"
and called it "an extraordinary assault" on his
authority.
In its editorial, the Mail said the "shock defeat inflicted
… by a combination of Tory rebels and Labour unquestionably marks the low point" in Cameron's
premiership. He had "staked his personal credibility on committing
the British military to join America in missile strikes on
Syria … that credibility is in tatters." More positively, said the paper, the vote represented
"an undoubted triumph of parliament over the
executive – a day in which MPs voted with their
consciences and represented the wishes of a deeply
sceptical public." The Mail gave Max Hastings a full page in which to fulminate against the prime minister: "What is it about British prime ministers that they
appear to succumb to madness in foreign affairs? After the ghastly example of Blair's wars, how
could Cameron for a moment contemplate
dragging this country into a struggle in which we
have no national interest, and there is almost nil
prospect of achieving a good outcome for the
Syrian people or the region?" The Sun's political editor, Tom Newton-Dunn, reflected
the prevailing view among journalists working in
Westminster: "Even veteran parliament watchers were left aghast by last night's shock vote … David Cameron and George Osborne sat silently on the
front bench, hunched over their knees and frowning." He concluded: "Prime ministers simply don't lose
votes on war, leaving us in truly uncharted territory.
Mr Cameron can survive this, but his authority will
never be the same again." Newton-Dunn's shock was shared by Sky News's
political veteran, Adam Boulton. Live on camera
immediately after the vote he struggled to convey its
significance for Cameron. He variously described it as
"a savage rebuff", "a massive rebuff", "an
unprecedented rebuff" and "a massive miscalculation". That opinion was reflected also by the Times's sketch writer, Ann Treneman: "No one could believe it when it happened." Least of all, of course, the prime
minister.

Serves them all right, Bunch of war criminals claiming to help humanity. I am glad the people of britain have stood up against their greedy government. I wish the people of America can do the same to Barrack Osama. Apparently they have seen the hand writing on the wall, either ways they get to be the greatest looser and also loosing their power and wealth to China which is the last card.

Hahahaha Long live the people of syria, long live the people of great britain but destruction to Cameron

David Cameron is a coward

This may never happen in the U.s because the americans are all "war-mongers".

At above poster, that is true

Capnd143: This may never happen in the U.s because the americans are all "war-mongers".

Usually the Democrates do more jaw-jaw than war-war compared to the Republicans.
I am surprised by the sounds and drums of war.
I am really sure there will be no air-stikes from Nato or USA against Syria.

If they do, Iran will not retaliate, same with Russia and China.
They will do what BIAFRA failed to do (fight but avoid destruction).

Should Iran eventually develop a Nuclear Weapon: will that be the beginning of PEACE

Peace is better than war