Replies

Okay, that might answer the who, but how? It seems to be a very subjective POV that I suspect not all share.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'how'. But I'll try and explain why it would be seen as a panic reaction by many who understand the system - no, not all - but I would say most.

Motions to be voted on can come before the British House of Commons in a number of different ways. Some of these ways are far more significant than others and that reflects how important an issue is to the British government.

In this case, this motion came to Parliament via the 'Backbench Business Committee' and that is one of the least significant ways to get a debate into the chamber. It's not that the issues being raised aren't important - while some are quite trivial, sometimes an important issue does come up - but if the only way an issue can get into the Parliament is via the Backbench Business Committee, it means that first of all, the Government (as embodied by the Cabinet) didn't think it was important enough to spend time on, as they have control of most of Parliament's time. Then the Opposition (as embodied by the Shadow Cabinet) didn't think it was important enough to spend time on, as they have the next largest allocation of time. Thirdly it wasn't seen as important enough to be an Early Day Motion (traditionally moved by the most powerful backbenchers), and fourthly it wasn't important enough to be an Adjournment Debate.

It could have been a Westminster Hall debate, which is even less important than a Backbench Business motion before the House, but the form really does indicate, how insignificant this issue is in terms of a change in British government policy.

So it's not a significant vote - and so the government treated it in the ways such insignificant votes are normally treated. As much as possible, they ignored it. Ministers didn't vote - and didn't even turn up. That's what is normal in these cases.

Now, why would it be seen as panic if Cameron had handled it differently?

Because the only reason an incumbent government would turn a vote like this into a big deal is if they thought they were in danger of losing control of the House. The only reason a Prime Minister would want such a vote is to shore up a shaky leadership or a shaky government. It would be a clear message that the government was in trouble.

Now, if the government was in trouble, then acting like it is (while perhaps not wise politically) would be accepting reality not panic - but to act like it is in trouble when it isn't is panic.

And the fact that Labour could only get the vote to 276 indicates that the government isn't in trouble, so if Cameron had acted like it was, panic on his part would be the logical conclusion.

The foreign relations between Britain and Israel seem to be deteriorating rapidly in spite of what you regard as prudence by the Commons.

Not prudence by the Commons. Prudence by the Government and Prime Minister. And, yes, there are problems with Britain's and Israel's relationship - but they would not be improved by a minor meaniningless debate, being raised to a major one that could try to force a change of policy on the government (it would fail to do so).

Nothing positive could have come out of elevating this to a large scale vote. In the best case scenario, the government would win such a vote by about 80 votes. In the worst realistic case scenario, it would only win by about 20 votes (a few different scenarios lead to that type of margin - theoretically an even worse result is possible but if things were that bad, the coalition would have collapsed at this point). That second result would weaken the government. As it is, Labour could clearly only get about the 280 number anyway, associated with the 80 point defeat scenario, and there was no risk of the vote even being close.