THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
One, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Guest post - 'Ministry of Defence can't tell the time. Good grief!'

The Prime Minister should now resign

BBC News - David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action.

Not because he is wrong (though he is) but because he is incompetent. He has embarrassed the nation by stupidly offering military support to our best ally that he should have known he could not deliver.

He should have sought Labour's support before ever recalling Parliament. When refused that support, he already had his answer (as his Whips could have told him) without this debacle. He could have politely and discreetly informed President Obama.

He has lost the trust of many of his own MPs, who are briefing the press that they are "unwilling to take him at his word". Since his word is given and retracted regularly in the face of mere opinion polls, let alone parliamentary defeats, who can blame them?

The man is a lightweight unworthy of his office - or any position of responsibilty. There should be no portrait on the Downing Street stairs, no pension and no peerage. He should just go quietly and let us begin to forget him.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Good comment Pogo


Tom, It sounds like Cameron understood that Milliband was agreed. So maybe he agred to sucker punch Cameron or maybe he just can't be trusted to stick to any promise. I figure Miliband saw a chance to cripple Cameron's reputation internationally because Cameron has been good at looking 'statesmanlike' amd Milliband isn'tand took the chance to do it when he got it. How it could make the UK for good or bad look didn't factor.


I agree with much of what you say. However, talk of "sugical strikes" is generally just a load of b*ll*cks... The only true "surgical" strike is to kill an individual using a sniper or someone daft enough to walk up to them and blow their brains out. I suppose that you could use a "targetted chemical strike" but anything more widely disseminated than putting something in his coffee is almost inevitably going to have wider effects.

I heartily agree with your comments about lack of scientific knowledge/education in the western social democracies - as a retired physicist (who oddly also has an LLB - don't ask!) I'm utterly appalled at the nonsense spouted and believed by those who set themselves up to run or influence our lives. The insanity of the UK's energy policies, for example, reflects this very strongly.

I believe it was Sir Charles (C.P.) Snow who opined that "no-one without a basic knowledge of science should consider themself educated", the success of the spoof "ban dihydrogenmonoxide" movement shows that we have a long way to go before we have an "educated" populace. I believe that "Penn and Teller" as a demonstration of the emotional irrationality engendered by scientific ignorance managed to collect a large number of signatures on a petition to ban this evil chemical at, of all places, a "green" (IIRC Greenpeace) mass rally.


It certainly makes no difference when you're dead, but since they were first deployed in the Great War, chemical weapons have always inspired a particular horror. I think it comes from the same sort of scientific ignorance that has people scared of radioactivity though the roses in their garden are radioactive, or worried about "chemicals" in their food, though H2O is a chemical! The poor scientific education in social democracies (where the study of social sciences is more important politically than the study of how the universe works) is at the root of many of our oddities of thought. And I speak as one with a very weak scientific education (not to mention - some would say - many oddities of thought)

Personally (though I favour no attack at all in this case) I would prefer one chemical strike specifically targeted on President Assad and/or his brother over one cruise missile that killed innocent civilians. Does that make me more or less ethical than other armchair warriors?


Exactly! I fail to see the practical difference between "nasty" chemical weapons and "nice" missiles, bombs, incendiary devices, machine guns and artillery. Listening to the way some armchair warriors have been fulminating one gets the impression that they're convinced that any nice cuddly cruise missile fired by "our side" are just going to hug non-combatants to death.

They are all equally indiscriminate and equally barbaric.


Why is that a line, and the other modes of killing used here, not? The conduct (as best I can tell on both sides) of barbaric, public, indiscriminate killing of non combatants is not for the faint hearted. Why now?


Perhaps it is a line, but who appointed us to police it?


His wife.


As much I agree with you about Cameron I have somewhat different thoughts on the vote and paste here a comment I made on another blog on the subject.

Those MPs who voted against action will be saved their shame only if the US takes action that ensures the Assad regime does not use chemical weapons ever again. If no action or UK lack of support for that action does not ensure chemical weapons are not used again then that error of judgement will be a millstone around their necks. Ed Millipedes actions will be seen for what they were self seeking and not in anyone’s interests but his own and his parties. He asked for assurances were given them and still voted against but then he is of the loony and arrogant left and such behavior is to be expected. I do believe that the Syria civil war is none of our business and quite happy that Islamists and tyrants are killing one another as that keeps them too busy to being doing the same to us. However as Obama said there is a red line that should not be crossed (who would have thought that I would ever agree with that unstable, incompetent Marxist) and the use of chemical weapons is one of them.


Economics is most definitely NOT a science! :-)


I think he studied the dark arts of PPE at Oxford, didn't he? I suppose the "E" is a science, however dismal, but Philosophy and Politics? Hmm.


He should have required a public commitment from Labour before recalling Parliament. If he has been tricked into this by the boy Milliband, then I take an even sterner view of his incompetence. If Milliband had publicly approved the recall and stated Labour's support of an agreed motion, but then failed to deliver, I would be calling for his resignation too.


Actually, Miliband promised support after Cameron gave some assurances and then voted against. It's Miliband, not Cameron who was shown to not be able to carry their party.


It does seem like a big error of judgement by Cameron. An embarrasing nothing by Milliband.

Why anyone would bring the "coalition" into the equation as "broken" (some sort of political reflex?) as the government defeat seems to be from labour and conservative MPs doing what they are paid to do for once instead of playing at performing seals.

Maybe Cameron is just deeper than you all figure ^_^ maybe he isn't. Comme ci, comme ça


Best post/report on last night's result I have read this morning.
Plus some very astute comments, unfortunately I don't think they will get thru to Cameroon in his No. 10 bubble.

james higham

He should and it will be very interesting to see what goes down now.

James Strong

Who is the ex-art student involved in foreign policy?
Is it a special adviser, or is it a civil servant in the FCO?


This is what you get when ex-art students get involved with foreign policy, when Prime Ministers do not tell said art student that elected representatives make those decisions and finally when government whips cannot rely on coalition partners.

What happens next? PM dim-moron has to phone Obumbler and tell him the US cannot use RAF Akrotiri, RAF Mildenhall or RAF Fairford?

Absolute shambles, the coalition is broken, conservative MP's openly are disloyal to the PM(for good reason), dim-moron has to go.


This is the best political news I tthink I've ever seen...

The comments to this entry are closed.