Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Almost 700 party members responded – thank you – and we’re publishing the full results.
It’s a month ago to the day since David Cameron lost the vote in the Commons on keeping open the option of military intervention against Syria. Just a day ago, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons.
In the week before the Lib Dem conference in Glasgow we asked what party members thought about Syria. In the rush of conference week, we didn’t get the chance to report these at the time, and the story has moved on since then. But, for the record, here’s what you told us…
Majority opposition to any form of military-backed intervention
Thinking about the situation in Syria, here are some things that the UK Government is reported to have considered, in partnership with other countries such as France and the United States. Would you support or oppose each of the following?
Support 24%, Oppose 56%, Don’t know 16%
Support 5%, Oppose 81%, Don’t know 10%
Support 32%, Oppose 51%, Don’t know 13%
Support 21%, Oppose 63%, Don’t know 12%
Did MPs make the right decision? 64% say yes, 31% no
On 29th August, MPs voted against Britain taking any part in military action against Syria. Do you think that was the right or wrong decision?
-
33% – Right decision – Britain should keep out of any military attack on Syria
31% – Right decision – the case for British involvement was not proven BUT Parliament should be prepared to re-consider
26% – Wrong decision – Parliament should have kept open the option of military intervention against Syria for the future
5% – Wrong decision – Britain should have been ready to become involved in an imminent military attack on Syria
1% – Other
1% – Don’t know
Another chemical attack and opinion would’ve shifted…
If there were further chemical weapon attacks with hundreds more Syrians killed, and there was sufficient evidence to indicate the Assad regime was responsible, would you support or oppose the British Government instructing our UN representative to vote in favour of military intervention against Syria?
-
53% – Support military intervention against Syria
29% – Oppose military intervention against Syria
6% – Other
9% – Don’t know
50% would’ve wanted second Commons debate after UN inspectors report
United Nations weapons inspectors will shortly report on whether or not a chemical attack was launched in Syria in August. If they say such weapons were used, should the UK parliament hold a new debate to decide how to respond?
-
50% – Yes, Parliament should hold a debate
39% – No, there is no need for a new debate
7% – Don’t know
Narrow support for missile strikes – under specific conditions
If there were a new Commons debate following the UN inspectors’ report, would you vote to support or oppose prosecuting missile strikes against the Assad regime in Syria?
-
10% – Support missile strikes
39% – Support missile strikes BUT only if specific conditions were to be met (see question below)
38% – Oppose missile strikes
9% – Don’t know
(And here are those conditions)
These options were open only to the 39% of members who answered ‘Support missile strikes BUT only if specific conditions were to be met’.
On which of the following specific conditions would your support for missile strikes be dependent?
-
83% – Sufficient evidence is found by UN inspectors of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime
83% – The Government sets out clear and achievable outcomes of intervention
79% – Parliament approves military intervention
55% – The United Nations security council approves military intervention
8% – Other
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
There really is no getting out of this fiscal corner
Former sheriff candidate to face trial for allegedly registering cats to vote
Our West End ward surgeries #dundeewestend
Reform u-turn after tasting reality of power
Peter Martin
Craig Levene
David Evans
Simon R
13 Comments
I still haven’t got over how wrong it was for our leader to stand at the dispatch box and try to say the reason we should vote to bomb Syria was because of the children and to try to make out that the vote was meaningless.
I was open to Tony Blair’s idea in The Times, that was more hawkish, because he was being straight with us about it.
Although the party membership is fairly silent about many recent black marks, it doesn’t mean they have been forgotten about.
I haven’t seen any apologies from the ‘hawks’ on intervention in Syria to those of us who were arguing that intervention was, at the very least, premature. Had the UK parliament voted the other way then the probability is that Britain, France and the US would have begun military action before the G20 meeting the following week where it seemed clear to me that Putin and Obama would find another way of approaching the problem, which is exactly what happened. I didn’t like having to agree with a Tory blimp like Edward Leigh and feeling that the majority of my parliamentary party was wrong.
“It’s a month ago to the day since David Cameron lost the vote in the Commons on keeping open the option of military intervention against Syria.”
Sorry, but I can’t see anybody falling for that spin. The vote wasn’t against keeping the military option open, it was against allowing the government to take whatever military action it saw fit without UN approval and without further time that would allow for better options to be assessed and for a less-violent settlement to be achieved. It succeeded.
On Iraq, the Lib Dems gave the country a strong lead against an unjust war. On Syria, the Lib Dems gave the country nothing, except the damaging proof that they have now lost the capacity to lead. (Clegg didn’t even lead in articulating the case for war – Cameron and Ashdown did that better.)
This is an I Told You So post. I and others did find the right answer at the right time. We said “Give Diplomacy a Chance”. And we were right.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/liblinkpaddy-ashdown-after-the-syria-vote-britain-must-not-sleepwalk-into-isolationism-35987.html#comment-261912
If the Lib Dems had taken that lead, and called for dialogue with Putin, then we would have retained our reputation as the people who can avoid unnecessary wars. But they didn’t.
Thanks to Iraq, a lot of people found reasons to vote Lib Dem. After Syria, those reasons and those votes have been lost.
What tonyhill said.
I’ll just add that as well as being against the misleading nature of the campaign – it cannot be denied that the influence of dying children on our defence policy was overstated – I was also against the principle of it, given everything I knew.
As Tony Hill says, apologies should be made to those who were sneered at for saying “give diplomacy a chance”. The need for an apology is even greater given the good diplomatic news about Iran’s nuclear weapons program recently. I doubt any of this would have happened if we bombed Syria.
Finally, I get a reminder of the insurance advert “sometimes saying sorry isn’t enough”, which is what voters have in mind at the moment.
As is so often the reporting of the survey has some spin in it.
“Another chemical attack and opinion would’ve shifted…”
The first question was about military actions the UK government could carry out without any mention of the UN and the third question (with this commentary headline) doesn’t talk about military actions but actions in the UN. The commentary headline should have been more like “53% would support us voting for military intervention at the UN if there is evidence of the Assad regime carrying out a(nother) chemical weapons attack”.
Milliband was right. Clegg was wrong. Ashdown’s statement the following day was embarrassing – and he is going to run the election campaign.
It’s very telling indeed the silence of those on these forums who argued ferociously against us who were calling for more evidence and diplomacy to be given a chance.
The Clegg loyalists were screaming loudly at us and at the Labour party for rejecting the Governments motion on Syria.
Now that we were proven to be right all along, where have those voices all gone ?
Absolute silence.
It just goes too show how Tribal some have become within the party, willing to stand beside the leadership no matter what, willing to turn it’s back on principles that were once held dear to the party.
These people are constantly screaming for Edd Milllibad to apologize for things that Labour got wrong.
Isn’t it time that we saw some humility from those who were now proven to have been wrong in their support for the Governments motion.
Or is it the case as I suspect that tribalism is too rife among the Clegg’s loyalists to admit they where wrong.
These attitudes need to change and to change quickly. You are not going to be able to flight the next election with any credibility or hope of wining back lost supporters, unless changes are made now.
This aggressive tribal attitude will be perceived as, if it walks like and Tory, and Talks like a Tory…..
Brian D
“Milliband was right” To leave the Syrians to fight it out?
I don’t think Miliband is neutral on this one.
Only just seen this article – hence the silence from me. I voted for arming the moderate rebels. Had I been an MP I’d have voted for the parliamentary motion, despite it being pretty rubbish, as being more helpful than the alternative. But I’d have done so on the basis of my knowledge of Syria, not on the government’s case. So, I was on the losing side, and accept that the whole thing was a mess.
That said, I think all those saying that ‘we were right and the government were wrong’ are being very premature. Either that, or incredibly late. ‘Diplomatic initiatives’ have done nothing for Syria for the last 2 1/2 years. Russia surprised the US with a proposal for Syrian (WMD) disarmament only because of the credible threat of force.
All the Syrians I speak with say that the chemical weapons are hardly worth thinking about: 99% of the killing is being done by conventional weapons, and I see no prospect of ‘renewed diplomatic initiatives made possible by the vote in parliament’ bringing about a negotiated end to the war.
I get why most Lib Dems seem to be opposed to intervention. For the most part, they’re honourable reasons. It would be nice if those attacking supporters of intervention would admit that perhaps there are honourable reasons for us to hold our views to; would acknowledge that regardless of the merits of this case, military interventions have been successful in the past and that there are very different ways to do it.
“It would be nice if those attacking supporters of intervention would admit that perhaps there are honourable reasons for us to hold our views to”
Speaking for myself Jonathan, I have a lot of respect for those in favour of intervention, my major problem with the policy was what I believed was the dishonest manner in the way the government line was being promoted – the way they decided “let’s sell this by banging on about dead children”, when we know that the US, British and French military don’t just intervene because somewhere some children have died.
I also don’t think being in favour of intervention because the US asked us to and we need to stick by them is a good enough reason either – which seemed to be the main one – however for those who are knowledgeable about the situation and think intervention is right on its own merits then I have a lot of respect.
@Eddie, as I said – and you acknowledged – I don’t think think the government made the case very well, although for slightly different reasons. I think probably many politicians, but particularly those with government positions and so the possibility of being able to use power to do something about it, have been bothered by the ‘dead children’ for a long time. So even though I haven’t been impressed at what has been suggested, I don’t think it’s dishonest to claim this as a motive.
I wholly agree that ‘doing what we’re told’ is not a good reason to consider going to war, although there is a legitimate debate about whether we should (and should want) to upset an ally. We may well do, but we should be clear about why we’re doing it. Clear to them, and clear to ourselves.
The poison of Blair’s Iraq war still runs deep, and I often find myself feeling sick as I’m about to say somthing to argue my position and remember him using similar words to make a superficially similar case.
One further thing. Although I criticise the government’s making (or not) of the case for considering military intervention, I also criticise much of the argument used against the government. For example, it sounds obvous and right to say that ‘we must be 100% sure that the Assad regime was responsible for using chemical weapons before considering military action”. But it’s totally unrealistic. Even in the best and fairest courts of law the standard is only ever ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. After Blair’s lies and manipulation of the intelligence, I’m glad the government didn’t try to present a 100% cast-iron ‘we are right’ case for war. From my own research I consider it to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attack on Ghouta – and for many, if not all, of the others. (And though I say ‘if not all’, I’m not aware of any credible evidence that rebels have been behind any of the other chemical weapon attacks.) It was wrong for opponents to present the government as warmongering in this way, and to present themselves as ‘pure, principled anti-war/pacifists’ in this way.
I think the main problem was the government’s fumbling for a strategy. The government still doesn’t have a remotely clear idea about what it is trying to achieve, and so any attempts to do something to help look bungled or dishonest. But opponents seem to be taking this as deliberate deception, and – while motivated for the most part by honourable principles – are failing to see what is actually happening in Syria, and failing to consider the motives and methods of the other actors.