It was but not a confidence vote by definition.
The last time there was a motion of no confidence was apparently in 1979! A good few years before I was born!
Normally, the threat of a leadership vote of no confidence as in what happened to Thatcher (causing her to resign) and was threatened of Blair, Brown and Cameron to varying degrees can cause a leader to resign or stand for their position.
A couple of things. First off, kudos to Parliament. Second, methinks the guy sitting in the back of the room is getting the last laugh here on our arrogant POS president. Third, this guy is stupid enough and a marcicist enough to forge ahead anyway. If he does, he may get us involved in a WW over his arrogance and ego. Lastly, our steady as she goes Congress better take hold of this guy immediately and if they don’t, they better get the impeachment motions flying. I’d even be open to his excellency being brought up on international charges, after all, he has been rejected by the UN, a few allies like Britain, France and Germany already which seems to indicate why we have not heard anything from NATO on this matter. Public opinion for any action is below 10% too. What the hell is our Congress waiting for??
I’m no expert on the (unwritten) British constitution, but I thought that ANY government motion that involved “grave matters” (and asking the sovereign to send in the Forces is such a matter) was, by definition, also a confidence vote.
After all, if the government wants to go to war and the House does not, in what way can that government be said to retain the confidence of the House?