Forum Topic

Syria vote

How did Angie Bray vote last night?

Nigel Williams ● 4765d20 Comments

She voted against

Kim Rugg ● 4765d

Good for her - never has there been such wooly thinking shown by all parties and Labour's antics have I suspect not won them many new votes.

Joe Conneely ● 4765d

Actually after no-one posted a reply on here I went to look at Hansard.  She voted for war.  Luckily it was defeated.

Nigel Williams ● 4765d

I looked it up on Backbencher and they have her down as voting against.But then she is not usually a rebel so Hansard may be right.

Kim Rugg ● 4764d

Further internet search would confirm that she did vote for war, sorry for my initial post. The backbencher got it wrong.

Kim Rugg ● 4764d

I did try posting on the forum but got an error message, again!I am pleased with the outcome. I think people are more aware of what happens when we bomb other countries, it doesn't actually solve anything or guarantee peace.

Jean F Fernandez ● 4764d

Why doesn't that surprise me. Anyway, the right decision was made in the end.

Chris Hurley ● 4764d

Whatever the rights and wrongs of military action, I'm delighted to see MPs standing up to bullies in the Whips office (and Michael Gove(and his wife!)) and voting the way they think is right and think their constituents want.Cameron has shown very poor judgment indeed this past week: he should have waited for the weapons inspectors to report rather than recalling parliament, insisting on an immediate debate/vote and crawling off to Chequers for the weekend looking like a loser.

Susan Kelly ● 4764d

Agreed Susan but as stated earlier I do not think Eddie Moribund has come out of this fiasco looking any smarter given he kicked it off?Also so it is not forgotten Blair would never have got the vote to go to war on Iraq without full Tory MPs support, as he faced the largest " party in power" revolt of its own MPs voting against the government (139 Labour MPs) since the vote split on Irish Home Rule by the Liberals under Gladstone in the late 19th century!

Joe Conneely ● 4764d

I seem to remember that the Americans used chemical weapons in Cambodia.........!!  When they continually said they were no where near the area.Both ours and the Americans foreign secretaries are talking so much cr.p I just do not believe they have the nerve to do so.  Do they think we are all stupid?Also I note that Tony Blair doesn't have anything to say.  And it looks as though his Irish 'success' was not so successful.

Dee Cook ● 4764d

I would have been astonished - if delighted - if she had voted against. Would have been quite a statement for her.But the proportion of female MPs speaking against (in media etc not the house) is noticeably high - so I was hopeful

Sara Nathan ● 4764d

Can I suggest that those interested in what is presently happening in Syria and the surrounding countries readColin Thubron's 'Mirror to Damascus', which gives an historical chronology of the main events from 4000 bc to 1966.I do hope that the archaeology is not being totally destroyed in the present bombing, which would be a great loss to everyone.

Dee Cook ● 4762d

If Cameron wanted them to jump off the top of Big Ben Angie Bray would vote for it.I am not surprised by anything that woman does, I don't see her as my MP as I NEVER VOTED FOR HER AND HAVE NIL RESPECT FOR ANYTHING SHE DOES OR DOES'NT DO.

Diana Oneill ● 4762d

You can actually see her voting record on the big issues, from tuition fees to gay marriage.This certainly will inform how I vote.

Kim Rugg ● 4762d

In a similar fashion (though from US perspective in parts) the two attached recent articles links at the end of this posting from the New York Review of Books explain why Syria is a very different case to many others where the USA, UK and France have recently been involved.While the USA may have derided the UK parliament's decision (McCain especially) there is just a possibility that despite the fluffing of the whole debate by the main UK parties leaders, this is possibly a defining moment for the UK in realising its role and involvement in such matters going forward has to be different, even if it has taken from the Suez Crisis till now to get there? Only time will tell. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/20/stay-out-syria/?page=1http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/agony-syria/?page=1

Joe Conneely ● 4761d

If it means just for once that we do not have to carry the coat tails of the USA, then that's a relief. If in any way it means our security forces will have less pressure on them from terrorist forces in the UK then that's also a relief.If France supports the USA then perhaps they will be seen as a worse devil.Ironic that Labour allows the econonomy to fall into a recession, then does a deal to support the government on Syria, then acts as turncoat at the eleventh hour.

George Knox ● 4761d

Seems Obama is putting this to the vote as well. Sept 9th.

Keith Iddon ● 4761d

The French last shelled Damascus in 1925 .... their present President may be wise to take a different stance and rethink his present strategy.

Dee Cook ● 4761d

Nothing ever goes right for poor old Hollande. He's all ready to suck up to the US, got his soldiers standing by with their boots on, and Obama pulls the plug!

Susan Kelly ● 4761d

He will tolerate it because he still "owes them" for Obama and the USA kindly letting him and France take the lead on ridding Libya of Gaddafi (however Cameron tries to position it!) and pose as a world power.

Joe Conneely ● 4761d