Blog: Why does it take a Commons vote for the government to do the right thing on Syria?
It's a good day. The government has made the best possible U-turn and caved in on the Syria refugee question. After months of ignoring the question, then obfuscating, then flailing around wildly with excuses, it has finally buckled to the weight of moral and strategic demand. Britain will take hundreds of the most needy refugees – children, women in danger of rape, disabled people and torture victims. But it still won't be taking part in the coordinated UN programme.
Politics.co.uk has published articles showing the supreme moral and strategic need for taking Syrian refugees for some time, as have several other media outlets and pressure groups. As demands increased, ministers were silent. And the depressing reality of today's announcement is that it seems to have been undertaken for cynical reasons.
Comment: If Britain really cares about Syria, it will open its doors to refugees
Comment: We can help Syria if we stop being so macho
Analysis: The Syrians we've seen have survived the worst persecution imaginable
Syria falls apart… but Britain offers no places at all to refugees
Comment: Miliband's canny political attack provided a moral victory on Syrian refugees
It comes on the day of a Commons vote which the government looked set to lose. Labour tabled the vote after a pointed exchange between Ed Miliband and David Cameron in last week's PMQs. Cameron flailed everywhere in a bid to avoid the moral urgency of Miliband's demands. He tried every counter-argument imaginable, most of them lacking logical foundation.
Once Cameron did finally change his mind, he reportedly had to still batter down opposition from the ever-reliable Theresa May. If there is a moral chasm somewhere, you will find her beating a path toward it.
It seemed Liberal Democrats would vote with Labour, as would some Tory MPs. Not only would the government lose, it would be seen as cruel and indifferent in an area where it has not, in general, behaved badly. The UK is, after all, the world's second biggest humanitarian donor to the region and it has mostly taken those Syrian asylum seekers lucky enough to have made it to its shores.
But it has relied throughout on the argument that it is best to help those neighbours of Syria best placed to take refugees. This is not an unfair conclusion to draw, but it does not preclude having a refugee programme to compliment it. We can, and should, do both.
Once it had accepted the need to back down, the government still appeared to act tactically. Its refusal to participate in the UN programme seems motivated more by a desire for consistency with its previous refusal rather than by a consideration of what is most useful.
Britain should be taking a leading role in an international programme. It should be setting an example, not standing in the corner in a strop, reluctantly doing the right thing after months of arguing.
Today's decision is highly welcome. It salvages the UK's moral and strategic credibility on the world stage. It's just a shame that the prime minister should have to be forced into it by a Commons vote.
