DAVID Cameron has insisted a "robust response" is needed to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons despite being forced to drop plans for the potential use of British forces in strikes against Syria.
After suffering a humiliating Commons defeat, helped by 39 Coalition rebels, the Prime Minister acknowledged "politics is difficult" but made clear he would not have to apologise to US President Barack Obama for being unable to commit UK military units to any international alliance.
Stressing it was vital to maintain the international ban on chemical weapons, he said: "We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of - whether the EU, or Nato, or the G8 or the G20 - to condemn what's happened in Syria."
His parliamentary setback came despite watering down his original Commons motion to promise a second vote on military action. Tory HQ had railed against Ed Miliband, accusing him of playing party politics on Syria and "flip-flopping" on the issue of military strikes.
Asked if the Labour leader had behaved "dishonourably", Mr Cameron said: "It's a matter for him to defend the way he behaved and his conduct."
Mr Miliband, who had denounced the PM's leadership on Syria as "reckless and impulsive", insisted Mr Cameron would now have to "find other ways" to put pressure on the Assad regime.
Stressing that the Coalition should not wash its hands of the issue, he said: "There are other routes than military means to actually help the people of Syria," mentioning diplomatic and political pressure.
In the aftermath of the vote, there was a good deal of recrimination and political reflection.
While the PM said the Government whips had done a "good job", his view was not shared by some of his Tory colleagues.
Pressure was mounting for him to sack Sir George Young, the Chief Whip, as 10 ministers and government aides together with a raft of other Coalition MPs did not turn up for the key vote; if they had the Government would have won.
One Tory MP insisted: "George Young has got to carry the can for this."
It was suggested the bicycling baronet could be for the chop in a forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle.
In political reaction to the vote, Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader who was the High Representative in Bosnia, said the UK was "hugely diminished" by it.
The peer said he had never felt more ashamed or depressed following the Commons vote, which, he said, was "a bad night for the Government and a bad night for Britain too".
But backbencher Sarah Wollaston, one of the Tory rebels, insisted the reverse inflicted on the Prime Minister was a "good day for Parliament" as it reflected the widely-held view across Britain against military intervention.
Angus Robertson, for the SNP, insisted that after the UK Government defeat there had to be a renewed diplomatic and humanitarian focus and a specific initiative to bring those who had used chemical weapons before justice.
"The international community must prioritise efforts for a comprehensive peace settlement in Syria including justice for the victims of alleged chemical weapons attacks," he said.
Meanwhile, George Osborne accepted the Coalition defeat would spark a debate about whether Britain still wanted to play a major role in the world.
"There will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system," said the Chancellor.
When asked whether the parliamentary defeat would damage Britain's alliance with America, he replied: "There's a bit of hyperbole on this in the last 24 hours. The relationship with the United States is a very old one, very deep and operates on many layers."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article