Just as this morning we predicted he might, Labour leader Ed Miliband has spotted the possible big political gap to go for and sharply differentiate between the government and opposition's positions on a punitive strike on Syria . The very tempting possibilty of defeating David Cameron's belicose proposals in tomorow's Commons debate has loomed into his field of view. He must see the opportunity as just too good to miss, whatever he believes are the merits of the case. That's raw politics.
He has had no qualms in doing this cartwheel or handbrake turn from his broadly supportive position position after 10 Downing Street put their hands around his shoulders and went through the evidence and allegedly moral arguments so far with him yesterday. Unless he accepts a bit of a fudge it is unlikely that his demands for more conclusive proof of who was responsible for the chemical attack can be met. There is therefore the real possibility of Labour voting against the government.
If Labour can now bring through the "no" lobby with them other unconvinced , questioning or firmly hostile MPs in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats and the fringe parties, they could defeat the Prime Minister's motion. Until at least the 1960s, democratic and parliamentary convention on an issue as major as this would have meant that the losing PM would respond with words along the lines of :" I will take my case to the country" and it would be game over. Parliament would have been dissolved and a new General Election would have taken place in the mercifully short minimum time of three weeks. The country would have pronounced its verdict and in the meantime no action would have been possible.
Such honourable and genuinely democratic action is now highly unlikely from any party. The convention has lapsed and been ignored more than once. A defeat would though leave the Prime Minister with a very public international and domestic black eye, particularly if, as seems likely, he has already done a Blair and guaranteed Britain's support for action to President Obama. Constitutionally he could still proceed. He is entitled to do that. The price though, especially if things went wrong and/or the punitive mission were not self contained or involved substantial civilian fatalities and damage, could be terminal to both Mr Cameron and his government.
And as we said earlier today, all Mr Cameron had to worry about a week ago was keeping his beach towel in place while he wriggled around publicly changing his swimming trunks. Maybe he will begin to wish he were back there by that rock. The majority of the electorate are back there already. Has nobody told him?
He has had no qualms in doing this cartwheel or handbrake turn from his broadly supportive position position after 10 Downing Street put their hands around his shoulders and went through the evidence and allegedly moral arguments so far with him yesterday. Unless he accepts a bit of a fudge it is unlikely that his demands for more conclusive proof of who was responsible for the chemical attack can be met. There is therefore the real possibility of Labour voting against the government.
If Labour can now bring through the "no" lobby with them other unconvinced , questioning or firmly hostile MPs in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats and the fringe parties, they could defeat the Prime Minister's motion. Until at least the 1960s, democratic and parliamentary convention on an issue as major as this would have meant that the losing PM would respond with words along the lines of :" I will take my case to the country" and it would be game over. Parliament would have been dissolved and a new General Election would have taken place in the mercifully short minimum time of three weeks. The country would have pronounced its verdict and in the meantime no action would have been possible.
Such honourable and genuinely democratic action is now highly unlikely from any party. The convention has lapsed and been ignored more than once. A defeat would though leave the Prime Minister with a very public international and domestic black eye, particularly if, as seems likely, he has already done a Blair and guaranteed Britain's support for action to President Obama. Constitutionally he could still proceed. He is entitled to do that. The price though, especially if things went wrong and/or the punitive mission were not self contained or involved substantial civilian fatalities and damage, could be terminal to both Mr Cameron and his government.
And as we said earlier today, all Mr Cameron had to worry about a week ago was keeping his beach towel in place while he wriggled around publicly changing his swimming trunks. Maybe he will begin to wish he were back there by that rock. The majority of the electorate are back there already. Has nobody told him?
