Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

Ministers face sack over Syria shambles

24 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

At least five Government ministers face the sack in the wake of David Cameron’s humiliating failure to secure parliamentary backing for military strikes against the Syrian regime.

Alan Duncan, David Gauke and Steve Webb failed to return from holiday to support the Government, angering the Prime Minister, according to sources.

Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, and Mark Simmonds, a junior Foreign Office minister, claim to have not realised that voting had begun as they were in a meeting. Commons officials said the explanation was baffling as it “would have been clear” that a vote was happening.

Read more

So to add insult to injury Cameron is going to play "mental dwarf's revenge"?

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wELL, I THINK THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH, IF THEY WERe (caps lock still on) if they were supposed to be deciding whether to commit the country to War you might have reasonably expected them to make an effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Cameron needed them there, he should've postponed calling a vote until he was sure they would be back, it does seem he rushed straight into judgement. The UN hasn't come to any conclusion as yet, why is Britain diving in nose first?

Edited by libstaK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Cameron needed them there, he should've postponed calling a vote until he was sure they would be back, it does seem he rushed straight into judgement. The UN hasn't come to any conclusion as yet, why is Britain diving in nose first?

That is called ACTIONISM and all politicians lacking a clear plan for the future fall into that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to add insult to injury Cameron is going to play "mental dwarf's revenge"?

No, he's firing people who can't be bothered to do the job we pay them for. They have insanely good holidays and pay. If the country needs them to make a decision, they can damn well turn up and miss a couple of days holiday.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's firing people who can't be bothered to do the job we pay them for. They have insanely good holidays and pay. If the country needs them to make a decision, they can damn well turn up and miss a couple of days holiday.

No mate it has to be drummed up to look like the evil politicians of the UK are persecuting the only few good ones left.

On the other hand they could have just turned up and played democracy and voted no.

As usual the two biggest UK haters on this forum think it is a big deal. I just feel sorry for them as it can't be nice going through life with such utter bitterness.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron should have been able to get the toothless resolution passed; I read that as more of a signal against him than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mate it has to be drummed up to look like the evil politicians of the UK are persecuting the only few good ones left.

On the other hand they could have just turned up and played democracy and voted no.

As usual the two biggest UK haters on this forum think it is a big deal. I just feel sorry for them as it can't be nice going through life with such utter bitterness.

Who are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're facing the sack for doing the right thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the margin of defeat was 12 votes, it makes no sense to blame these 5 for Cameron's loss. Sure, rebuke them, demote them, whatever for failing to "attend to their duty" - but if Cameron is really looking to fire them, that just smacks of scapegoating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're facing the sack for doing the right thing?

The right thing? what nothing you mean. They are paid to attend parliament to vote on important issues like going to war, if they can't do that then get another job.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the horrible deaths of several hundred children morally so abhorrent that the fact that the whole world is not invading this miserable little place and putting an end to it is the real moral outrage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right thing? what nothing you mean. They are paid to attend parliament to vote on important issues like going to war, if they can't do that then get another job.

Try a bit of analytical thinking before blasting away with your emotions. Cameron wants to sack the ministers because he didn't win the vote and he's finding scapegoats. He lost by 13 so a couple that were away on permission, which had the right to do so, wouldn't have affected the overall result anyway.

31 abstained because his reasons for intervention weren't good enough as explained in the article by one of the ministers. They probably didn't vote "No" to avoid him the ultimate humiliation, so they abstained.

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, said Mr Cameron had used a “shaky argument” when he had asked Parliament to “kill people”.

“What he said was that they couldn’t prove it [the case against the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad] outright,” Mr Davis said. “He used the words 'a matter of judgment’ several times, and that’s actually quite a shaky argument when you’re going to kill people.”

The reason Cameron got p..ssed off is because he probably got blasted by the US for the lack of support. You know, something like "when we tell you to jump, YOU JUMP".

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try a bit of analytical thinking before blasting away with your emotions. Cameron wants to sack the ministers because he didn't win the vote and he's finding scapegoats. He lost by 13 so a couple that were away on permission, which had the right to do so, wouldn't have affected the overall result anyway.

31 abstained because he's reasons for intervention weren't good enough as explained in the article by one of the ministers. They probably didn't vote "No" to avoid him the ultimate humiliation, so they abstained.

The reason Cameron got p..ssed off is because he probably got blasted by the US for the lack of support. You know, something like "when we tell you to jump, YOU JUMP".

Yeah i'm well aware what the result was thanks, I watched the entire debate through both houses.

I don't care if they voted for or against, i'm not bothered either way. My point is they are paid high wages to do a job, and if they can't cut their holidays short or make sure they are in the house on time to vote on something as important as military action then they deserve the sack. Bare in mind that it could have gone the other way by a few votes, and their votes might have stopped military intervention - so don't start singing their praises just because the vote came back as a no.....they deserve the sack for not doing the job they are paid to do.

Edit - spelling

Edited by Sky Scanner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i'm well aware what the result was thanks, I watched the entire debate through both houses.

I don't care if they voted for or against, i'm not bothered either way. My point is they are paid high wages to do a job, and if they can't cut their holidays short or make sure they are in the house on time to vote on something as important as military action then they deserve the sack. Bare in mind that it could have gone the other way by a few votes, and their votes might have stopped military intervention - so don't start signing their praises just because the vote came back as a no.....they deserve the sack for not doing the job they are paid to do.

You won't get an argument out of me if you're mocking the lucrative lifestyles of politicians, many of which are as useless as t..ts on a bull. But I'm sure that isn't the "true" reason Cameron got irked off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the horrible deaths of several hundred children morally so abhorrent that the fact that the whole world is not invading this miserable little place and putting an end to it is the real moral outrage.

Those three little words are important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't get an argument out of me if you're mocking the lucrative lifestyles of politicians, many of which are as useless as t..ts on a bull. But I'm sure that isn't the "true" reason Cameron got irked off.

I'm not knocking the lifestyle, if you earn the money then you deserve it, and plenty of politicians work tirelessly and deserve their pay. My point is that they all get paid well, and when it comes to matters of killing people in a foreign land who you have never met, then you better get yourself to the house, hear the whole debate and make an informed decision. Other then something like a bereavement in your family they simply have no excuse for not being there.

If you can't do the job when the important stuff comes up, go and get another job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Cameron needed them there, he should've postponed calling a vote until he was sure they would be back, it does seem he rushed straight into judgement. The UN hasn't come to any conclusion as yet, why is Britain diving in nose first?

Because Master America commanded they get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the margin of defeat was 12 votes, it makes no sense to blame these 5 for Cameron's loss. Sure, rebuke them, demote them, whatever for failing to "attend to their duty" - but if Cameron is really looking to fire them, that just smacks of scapegoating.

Really? So if I, as a teacher, don't turn up to work on Monday, with no reason, I don't deserve the sack? Awesome, this should be an easy half term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're facing the sack for doing the right thing?

no, it's the ones who couldn't be bothered coming back from their holidays in the Maldives who are facing the Wrath of Cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron is sacking no-one. he hasn't the power. this is just the media drivel yet again. when it looked like we was going to take action - military action the media position was the government should listen to public opinion and hold a vote in parliament. a few days passed and it looked like the vote wasn't going to happen so the media kept on, then Cameron decides to recall parliament to hold a vote, the media then goes into a frenzy of how will the vote will go, what followed is the media going into melt down. when the results was announced and parliament voted against military action the media changed tact again going on how does this reflect on the UK, going on about how France is now the USA's best ally, how the "special relationship" as came to a end. what does this mean for the UK are we in retreat to isolationism, the situation seems today the US is having second thoughts also. so the media yet again change tact and the big story is Cameron as been embarrassed and now hes sacking MP's yet the truth is he cannot sack anyone, the only thing he can do is demote a front bench minister. but that minister still remains a MP. and to be fair if you are a front bench minister IE head of a government office you need to take the job serious and attend all critical government votes.

I could be wrong but i get the impression the USA are having doubts about military action, but unfortunately Obama as crossed a number of bridges to quickly, and put his cards on the table. luckily for him he hasn't burnt them bridges and can save face. i knew yesterday before his speech in the rose garden what he was going to say, i knew he was going to go to congress for a vote. with the highly likelihood they will also vote NO to military action. it then gives him a way out, without being embarrassed. he said as much in his speech, its true he said he believes military action should be taken, but then bleats on about how he believes in giving congress a vote and believing in democracy etc..... now the imminent military strike could be 10 or more days away. not so imminent.

the Americans are back tracking. and i'll be very, very very, verrrryyyyyyy surprised if they carry out any military strikes. - dont tell me when Cameron was on the blower to Obama telling him the UK was out, its not our gig, that didnt ring alarm bells in Washington - Americas closest ally and biggest contributer to any past conflict is giving this one a miss. - c'mon, The US finds itself standing there - looking right were and old trusted friend stands - but this time sees no UK, looks left and sees France and doesnt thing gawd, - i see the US is still according to them looking for coalition partners. - see the UK haters love to tow the line the UK is the US's lapdog. and its a one sided relationship. yet politically do you think if the UK would have given the green light "count us in" that Obama would have gone to congress for approval. having the UK would have been justification to act.

The Americans and here im talking about the people of the US. know this isnt their gig either. Syria is small fry, let the Arab league deal with the problem. for me there should be a big exclusion zone around the middle east were the west shouldn't get involved. because we are damned if do and damned if we don't. 100,000 thousand people have died in syria in the last three years 2 to 3 million refugees have crossed neighbouring borders, 1,400 have been killed by who we dont know using chemical weapons. let the neighbouring countries deal with their neighbour are they not also UN members. plus they have more in common, such as language and culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So if I, as a teacher, don't turn up to work on Monday, with no reason, I don't deserve the sack? Awesome, this should be an easy half term.

If you were on holiday, already agreed upon with the school you teach at, then you would have reason to take action against that school if they sacked you.

So, such analogies are useless. I accept that the situation warranted those absent cast a vote - and we could say the same about any vote taken in parliament. These people are elected and paid to make these decisions.

However, the only mechanism currently in place for taking these votes, is the archaic "walk through a door" method for those who are present in chamber. Perhaps it is time to start looking at alternative methods of MP voting to allow those not present to do the job they are supposed to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were on holiday, already agreed upon with the school you teach at, then you would have reason to take action against that school if they sacked you.

So, such analogies are useless. I accept that the situation warranted those absent cast a vote - and we could say the same about any vote taken in parliament. These people are elected and paid to make these decisions.

if an emergency came up that might affect the future of the school or the entire educational system, it might not be too unreasonable to expect anyone who claimed to be committed to the job to make some sacrifice some of their lesuire time, mightn't it?

However, the only mechanism currently in place for taking these votes, is the archaic "walk through a door" method for those who are present in chamber. Perhaps it is time to start looking at alternative methods of MP voting to allow those not present to do the job they are supposed to?

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to turn up in person for something important, it'd be different if they were engaged on something highly important as part of their job, they were just on holiday in the Seychelles or on some millionaires' yacht.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if an emergency came up that might affect the future of the school or the entire educational system, it might not be too unreasonable to expect anyone who claimed to be committed to the job to make some sacrifice some of their lesuire time, mightn't it?

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to turn up in person for something important, it'd be different if they were engaged on something highly important as part of their job, they were just on holiday in the Seychelles or on some millionaires' yacht.

A Downing Street source said: “There were a number of MPs who did not attend the Commons vote either for personal reasons or because the logistics were impossible. These arrangements were agreed with the whips’ office.”

This is from the article qm linked to. If such absences were agreed, then why is Cameron making such a song and dance about them? To distract from the embarrassment of his defeat, perhaps?

As I said, scapegoating.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.