Here it comes: Syria

[Melchett01]

The result of last night's vote in no way results in a diminution of either GB plc or the rationale for having Armed Forces as suggested by the likes of Paddy Ashdown. Only those that would like to see the British military totally neutered would put forward such an argument as they believe it strengthens their case.

It does not. What last night's vote does do is to make a series of very important points across a range of issues, of which the lack of UK involvement in Syria is merely a symptom.

Firstly, it finally, re-emphasises the primacy of the Legislature and the people over the Executive. For too long, and certainly since Blair, this country has not been ruled by Parliament but by a form of 'kitchen table' or 'sofa' cabinet, where decisions were made by a few individuals, advised by unelected and unaccountable SpADs who could peddle their own ideas and agendas, and which were then presented to the Legislature to be rubber stamped. That is not the action of an effective democracy. Last night's vote was a move against that trend and potentially the first steps to the re-establishment of Parliamentary rather than Cabinet government.

Secondly, the whole thing was rushed and ill-thought through. Cameron may well have had the kernel of an idea, but it was nothing more than a kernel. There was little or no supporting work to back up his case. General Dannett summed it up very nicely by suggesting that you don't make decision by kicking a ball down the pitch and deciding what to do on the basis of how it bounces. Any decision to launch a military campaign must be backed up by strategy, an examination of how the action supports that strategy, what the likely outcome is going to be and what we do if things don't go to plan. If anybody on this site that is currently serving presented a piece of operational staff work to the same standard that Cameron presented his case to Parliament, it would be sent back covered in red pen as being half considered with many questions still to be answered. The moral of the story, is get your ducks in a row and don't base your planning on assumptions, otherwise you look stupid when it all goes wrong. If the standard of evidence and argument presented to Parliament were presented to a court of law in a capitcal case where the burden of proof were set high enough to reflect the likely severity of the sentence, the case would be thrown out or the defendent acquited.

Finally, I think the comparisons of Syria to Iraq and the dodgy dossier miss a fundamental point. Firstly, Milliband was always going to play the 'learning from Iraq' card; it puts further distance between the Labour Party of 2013 and the Labour Party of 2003 and helps try to heal a running sore that will blight the Labour Party for a long time when it comes to foreign policy. Secondly, there have been a number of statements suggesting that this demonstrates a lack of trust in the intelligence services. This in itself is a misunderstanding; the intelligence agencies - if managed correctly and not heading off on their own little power trips and agendas - will only work to advise the government of the day on the basis of the government's stated policies and agendas. How that intelligence is used by the politicians, especially if it is seen to be inaccurate or unuseable i.e. it doens't fit the politicians' ideas of what they want to do, is another matter entirely. When you hear of intelligence agencies being blamed, it is almost always because they have told the decision makers some unpalatable or inconvenient truth they didn't want to hear.

Those that know me will testify that I am right at the back of the queue when it comes to being a bleeding heart sandal wearing liberal, but where lives are at stake I would like to see a fully formed and reasoned argument which I just don't think has been presented by the Government. In such a case, last night's defeat should be seen not as a political victory for one side or another - although it clearly will be - but as a victory for common sense, for not pilling in both feet first without actually checking and as a strengthening of the democratic process. If the Government had done it's job properly and put a fully formed and evidence based rather than emotive case, they would have won and on that basis I would be more than happy to be convinced of the necessity to act.