Labour piles the pressure on Cameron as it warns it could still vote against his Syria motion

Unless the PM makes further concessions to Miliband, or wins over a sufficient number of coalition MPs, he faces the prospect of parliamentary defeat.

With Labour, Lib Dem rebels and up to 70 Tory backbenchers all opposed to immediate British military action against Syria, David Cameron faced the prospect of parliamentary defeat. It was this that forced him to back down last night and accept Ed Miliband's demand that no decision be made until after the UN weapons inspectors have presented their findings on last week's Ghouta massacre to the Security Council. 

The government motion was published and guaranteed that a "further vote of the House of Commons" would be held before any "direct British involvement". In line with Labour's position it stated that "[This House] agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission; Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken."

But if Cameron believed that a political consensus had been achieved, it looked like he was wrong to do so. Labour has signalled that it still plans to vote for its own amendment this evening and has refused to rule out opposing the government's motion. A party spokesman said this morning that the party's amendment "provides a roadmap towards what must happen before any action is taken" and sets out "clearer criteria" than the government's.

The question now is what concessions Cameron would have to offer to secure Miliband's support and whether he is prepared to do so. Labour's amendment, for instance, suggests that military action should only take place if there is "compelling evidence" that the regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons but the government's motion makes no such stipulation and notes that "the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame". As things stand, it is hard to see how that divide will be bridged. But unless Cameron is able to win Labour round, or to persuade a sufficient number of coalition MPs to support the government, he faces the prospect of something unprecedented in recent history: parliamentary defeat on a matter of peace and war. 

Protesters gather on Whitehall outside Downing Street to demonstrate against western military action against Syria. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.