Will Cameron have the guts to offer his MPs a free vote on Syria?

[exxon]

Corbyn doing the right and sensible thing! he simply had no choice else he would have been out of a job come next week.

 

As for Cameron doing the same I thought that the Tories were having a free vote anyway, no need for a whip as it should go through fairly easily.

 

Yes it is rather funny to claim credit for Corbyn after the anarchy of the past couple of weeks. This doesn't sound like a man in control of events at all.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/30/jeremy-corbyn-challenged-_n_8684668.html

 

Jeremy Corbyn’s authority was challenged by both his Shadow Cabinet and his MPs last night as he faced sustained criticism over his handling of the party’s policy on Syria and terrorism.

 

In an extraordinary day at Westminster, the Labour leader was forced to agree a free vote on UK bombing of ISIL and had to abandon an attempt to claim that the party policy was now officially against military action.

 

But the most trenchant criticism came at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting in the Commons.

 

Shadow police minister Jack Dromey slated Ken Livingstone’s claim that Tony Blair was to blame for the 7/7 bombings - and defence minister Kevan Jones accused Mr Corbyn to his face of 'subterfuge and double dealing' over Syria.

 

Former acting leader Margaret Beckett also slated Mr Corbyn for attempting to convene a snap meeting of the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) in an “outrageous” bid to sway the Shadow Cabinet to impose a whip against military action.

 

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn, who had earlier at the Shadow Cabinet warned he was prepared to call for action against ISIL even ‘from the backbenches’, also won applause at the PLP for saying Labour’s internationalist credentials were at stake.

[sgtkate]

I think the vote could be a lot tighter than we may think. Cameron needs 326 MPs to vote for. His party only has 330 MPs, so if just 4 vote no which is almost a given on a free vote, then it's looking tight.

Labour say that 80% of MPs have declared they will vote no, with another 10% still thinking it through, giving 23 MPs definitely voting yes. So will another 19 Tories join the No side? SNP are No but don't really count in this instance as it's all down to how many Tories say No as the critical factor. It's considerably closer than it appears and a little laughable for Cameron to say things like he was waiting for an overwhelming majority before calling a vote. Even with the best will in the world I can't see him getting more than 360 votes for, which is only 55% and hardly 'overwhelming'. However, it will of course stand, and our security will be weakened as a result of the vote, but there we go. Democracy and all that jazz.

[exxon]

I think the vote could be a lot tighter than we may think. Cameron needs 326 MPs to vote for. His party only has 330 MPs, so if just 4 vote no which is almost a given on a free vote, then it's looking tight.

Labour say that 80% of MPs have declared they will vote no, with another 10% still thinking it through, giving 23 MPs definitely voting yes. So will another 19 Tories join the No side? SNP are No but don't really count in this instance as it's all down to how many Tories say No as the critical factor. It's considerably closer than it appears and a little laughable for Cameron to say things like he was waiting for an overwhelming majority before calling a vote. Even with the best will in the world I can't see him getting more than 360 votes for, which is only 55% and hardly 'overwhelming'. However, it will of course stand, and our security will be weakened as a result of the vote, but there we go. Democracy and all that jazz.

 

If that were the case you have to wonder why half the shadow cabinet threatened to resign over the issue. Hilary Benn isn't renouned for siding with Cameron.

[sgtkate]

If that were the case you have to wonder why half the shadow cabinet threatened to resign over the issue. Hilary Benn isn't renouned for siding with Cameron.

 

I don't understand your question...are you surprised the figure is so high or so low?

[Eric Arthur]

The Guardian are reporting that around 60 Labour MP's will vote yes.

[sgtkate]

The Guardian are reporting that around 60 Labour MP's will vote yes.

 

I think that was the 'worst case' scenario, that all but 60 has said they would definitely vote 'no', with the 60 being a mix of unsures and definite 'no'. We shall see on Weds, but it's looking likely it will pass.

[exxon]

I don't understand your question...are you surprised the figure is so high or so low?

 

I didn't ask a question I made a statement.

[sgtkate]

I didn't ask a question I made a statement.

 

Then I didn't understand your statement. Also, the phrase 'if that were the case why...' tends to imply a question. My mistake.

[Alan Ladd]

Please remember that Cameron only lost the vote last time because Milliband stabbed him in the back.

 

Milliband had agreed to support the action after being briefed by intelligence sources of the necessity to do so.

 

When it came to the time he played politics, thought he could embarrass Cameron to the point of resignation.

 

He failed. It shows what a chancer Milliband and his advisers were and are.

[whiteowl]

What he does in his private life is his business but the whip cannot be used in a free vote (the clue is in the name).

 

 

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

Good question. If it's been announced, they're not making a big deal out of it.

 

I know what a free vote is thanks, the question was whether Cameron is allowing his MPs one, still not got an answer in the media for some reason.

Or am I missing something and the whole thing is a free vote ? In which case why is so much being made of Corbyn allowing his lot one