Friday, 30 August 2013

Eric Pickles' Holiday

I like Eric Pickles. As the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities he has overall done a good job. From saying no to the student bin tax (see to the one in one out policy on regulations. Eric is a proper Tory, who has made few mistakes and some great decisions that save us money and bring about better local councils. His battle for truth and justice with Nottingham Council proves this beyond doubt. So a big thumbs up overall to Eric.

 Eric spending some great time in the Florida jungles.

It seems I am not the only fans of Eric Pickles because university students James Johnson and Daniel Falvey, both Tory supporters, have taken Eric for a holiday to America. Or rather they have taken a near life sized card board cut out of Eric. James said "he has a lot of gravitas, and he's a funny man. What better way to spice up our American road trip than bringing along the man himself?"

What can I get you Eric?

Eric giving a speech to a packed house in the US.

The pair have taken him right across the states from civil war battle fields to beaches in Florida. They plan also to take him out to casinos in Las Vegas. Let's wish Eric good luck at the tables.

 Eric on the beach, wearing clothes sensibly to avoid sunburn.

Eric taking a chillaxing tip from Ken Clarke.

You can follow the progress of Eric's holiday at

 Eric with his good friend the alligator hunter in the swamps of the South.

Vote for the Australian Sex Party

In Australia as you may know they use AV, which is an awful system. However, this is not going to change in time for the General Election in Australia thus I urge all Australians as their first preference to vote for the Liberal Party who will really make Australia a better place. For Second Preference I would consider the Australian Sex Party.

If you don't like getting f#*@£$ over then make sure you support your civil liberties. Tony Abbott in the Liberal Party will make sure that doesn't happen but just to be sure show your support of the Australian Sex Party too.

The Noes Have It- What Next?

So Dave lost the vote in the House of Commons. What does this mean for the future of the 'Speacial Relationship', Red Ed, Parliament, David Cameron and of course Syria?

Is the 'Special Relationship' over, as Menzies (what an odd spelling) Campbell essentially said to the news. Well Menzies is quite mad and he can keep dreaming on. On foreign policy we have had several major gulfs with the Americans and yet we're still allies. At Suez the Americans sided with Russia over our invasion of the Sinai. In Vietnam we refused to help America, also the French helped the Americans. During the Falklands America didn't want to give any support because Argentina was an ally against Communists in South America. We have differed a number of times and yet we have always been pretty close. What will happen is a lot of shouting behind closed doors at most and nothing else.

Menzies Campbell speaking out of his arse for not the first time.

If our Special Relationship is coming under strain it's because of President Obama. This is the man who waged war against British Petroleum (not the name of BP). Hates the UK because his links to Kenya and the oppression we used there, of course forgetting that the side he takes in the Mao Mao Rebellion was far worse in killing people. This is also the President who has worst foreign policy ideas of any American President since time in memoriam, this whole debacle on Syria shows that up clearly. Even he is having problems in America about this, 50% of the US public oppose action in Syria. Congress is screaming to have a debate on this issue, but unfortunately for them the President has more executive powers. Obama is weary however and now looks like he is stalling on Syria. It's not just the British, he shouldn't have set the red line of chemical weapons.

 President Obama has messed this Syria issue up so much, i'd resign if I was him.

And speaking of the Executive, this was the day when the UK PM lost the ability to go to war without the consent of Parliament unless it is in defence of the realm or needed action at very short notice. This is a good thing, the fact that Parliament (which is elected by the people) can decide when to go to war is a sign of a healthy democracy. David Cameron wants this too saying in 2006 'the Crown Prerogative — that constitutional quirk that gives whoever is in No 10 the powers of a medieval monarch — needs to be changed.' His respect for Parliament last night showed that the Prime Minister was prepared to do what the demos thinks and not what he believed to be right. The people, or more strictly their representatives, are right. Those MPs who were pushing for a recall deserve a good deal of praise because this is about the only historical thing that has come from this vote.

 Parliament is Sovereign.

There were many good speeches in Parliament but remember one well. George Galloway lied when he said that he did not say Israel supplied the chemicals for the Syrian sarin attack (see I hope this disgraceful man is kicked by the electorate at the General Election, his views are disgusting.

What of the leader of Labour, Red Ed? Was he and Labour being party political? Yes. The calls to resign from the PM and Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary saying, how much this was a defeat for David Cameron because Tory MPs rebelled against him show this. But Red Ed didn't have much of a choice actually because of his own party pulling at him. If he had supported the Government motion last night it may have gone through, but this wouldn't have been the case next week. The majority of Labour MPs would not support going to war over Syria and combined with the 80+ Conservatives who do not agree with arming the rebels there would have been no majority for war. Red Ed after a summer of disconnect would have not wanted to look weak or ask MPs to back something they vehemently opposed, especially after threats of his leadership. 

 Ed during the debate.

Does this do anything for him? Well his celebrations last night were very over the top because if he tries to make David Cameron look weak by rubbing his face in this defeat he's going to find himself on the most dodgy of grounds because he is making fun over an act of war and the deaths of Syrian civilians. It will be very bad for him if does that. Red Ed has however shown he can advert political disaster which does show some political skills. But overall Ed must stay quiet and not make any gains after this Government defeat. 

David Cameron may have suffered government defeat but in factual senses this shouldn't affect his Government or leadership. This was a vote to go to war, not on government internal policy. Conservative MPs voted with their conscious against the Government because they don't agree with war, they will still support government bills. He also respected Parliament's decision greatly. 'I get that' David Cameron said just moments after the results of the vote was read out. 

But in reality Dave will face damage because nobody wanted this war in the public and he did. His sense of what is actually the right thing to do is clearly a little bit off. His short term rush and lack of political shrewdness is shown, at least he bears this collectively with the government. He must not however go around blaming the opposition for his defeat or saying 'they're a succour to Assad'. The best action is to keep calm and carry on. Hopefully he thinks things through better next time because this was  a bad decision for Syrians to go to war (see

For the people of Syria there is no relief however because, although a little bit less now Parliament has not backed war, the US could start an attack over the weekend. The striking of missiles is not the greatest worry in itself for the Syrian people. The after results of retaliation by Assad, from an increasing involvement in Iran and more Islamists flocking to the area is going to make their lives shorter and worse. Because of the chaotic state of the opposition diplomacy and aid are the best ways to stop the killing and obtain a better Syria.

I thus urge you to donate to the Syrian Crisis Appeal. I've made a donation to the British Red Cross to make sure they save more lives in the area. I've also collected a lot of charity links so you get wider choice in who you give your money to. If anything good comes out of this debate it is the exposure to the UK again of how terrible it is for the people of Syria. 2 million people are refugees (1 million are children), 100,000 have died and the majority of people are unable to even feed themselves. It's all very upsetting and sad. War would not help Syria but it doesn't stop us giving help to this war torn country. 

Please Donate.

Disasters Emergency Committee

War With Syria was a Bad Idea - That's Why the Government Lost

Conservative MPs Who Voted Against the Government Motion
David Amess
Steve Baker
Richard Bacon
John Baron
Andrew Bingham
Crispin Blunt
Fiona Bruce
Tracey Crouch
David TC Davies
Philip Davies
David Davis
Nick de Bois
Richard Drax
Gordon Henderson
Philip Hollobone
Adam Holloway
Dr Phillip Lee
Dr Julian Lewis
Tim Loughton
Jason McCartney
Nigel Mills
Anne Marie Morris
Andrew Percy
Sir Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Andrew Turner
Martin Vickers
Charles Walker
Chris White
Dr Sarah Wollaston

Conservative MPs Who Abstained on the Government Motion
Adam Afriyie
Henry Bellingham
Graham Brady
William Cash
Christopher Chope
Kenneth Clarke
Geoffrey Cox
Nadine Dorries
Alan Duncan
David Gauke
Justine Greening
Alan Haselhurst
Chris Kelly
Pauline Latham
Edward Leigh
Charlotte Leslie
Ian Liddell-Grainger
Jack Lopresti
Anne Main
Patrick Mercer
Jesse Norman
James Paice
Priti Patel
John Redwood
Andrew Rosindell
David Ruffley
Mark Simmonds
Rory Stewart
David Tredinnick
Andrew Tyrie
Bill Wiggin
Tim Yeo

Last Night the Government lost a motion on Syria by 13 votes, even though it didn't sanction military action. What the motion did was back the Government's legal position for going to war and in principle agree to it. Yet the Government couldn't even win this. Above is the list of Conservative MPs who voted against the motion and those who abstained (some of those who abstained are missing government ministers and some are ill). This was not because of  the spectre of Iraq or that it's not in the British Interest. The Government lost because this was clearly the worst idea ever.

Normally I'm pretty pro intervention. I was in full support of what happened in Libya because we allowed the Libyan people to get rid of a brutal tyrant and get them started on the path to democracy. Not everything is perfect in Libya at the moment but there is a democratic government which is starting to assert itself. People who would normally back intervention to save civilians lives and to allow a democracy in Libya did not back last night's motion in the Conservative Party and that is why the Government lost.

 Libya was a success, despite some problems afterwards. The only people who really regret toppling Gaddafi are George Galloway and the Russians who passed the UN motion.

Despite convincing hard-line sceptics like Douglas Carswell and Cheryl Gillian to vote with the Government David Cameron still lost this vote. And this was not the usual ground of Dr Sarah Wollaston either. The Noes on their side had MPs who you would not expect in this lobby. The abstentions are even more surprising. If we miss out the odd story of Justine Greening not hearing the division bell, you can see Adam Afriyrie and Jesse Norman not voting for the Government. Why did this happen?

 You know you have problems when those you would expect to back the Bill do not.

It wasn't to do with Iraq. For sure there were a lot of mentions of it but they came mostly from the Labour side. Labour has a problem with Iraq because they are of a mind set not to agree to intervention. Yet when Labour MPs sat on the government benches their own Prime Minister pushed for war and lied in the process. As a result they got a hammering in the polls of 2005. Speak to a Labour MP for a short time and Oona King will soon come up. Many of the electorate were also wary about Syria because of Iraq but in whole probably no more than in Libya. 74% of voters is such a huge number that it was clearly not Iraq which decided for them not to back Syria intervention. 

  Iraq caused a big problem for the Left but the facts caused a problem for the Conservatives.

David Cameron lost last night because, probably a lot like me, Conservative MPs could see this was going to be a disaster based on all the facts of Syria. A country where we would have to engage in a 3 way war. A country where we risked causing massive tensions with Iran and Russia. A country where there was no chance of bringing about a democracy. A country where we could quite clearly make no difference, or maybe make things worse, in saving civilian lives. A country where we were rushing over a short time to start action with little preparation. And also a country where our military chiefs said the most likely outcome for the UK would be defeat. This wasn't like Iraq at all, it was clearly much more complicated and much worse to get involved with.

I simply cannot believe that David Cameron, and William Hague too (who will be a bit nervous now so close to a reshuffle), thought that he could carry his party when all the facts went against him. I wasn't expecting Government defeat last night, but most sensible people knew that, with 80 Tory MPs against arming the rebels earlier this year, there was no way he was going to get Parliament to vote for war. What clearly happened was that David Cameron had decided to go to war perhaps even a year before, he had been swayed by all the graphic images we were seeing on our TV.

 William Hague has lost most of his credibility as a top rate statesman after the Syrian issues.

What Assad is doing is horrible beyond belief but if the PM hadn't allowed his heart to take over all logical thinking he wouldn't have lost a vote. With all the information at his disposal he should have known better than everyone that the facts showed we were unable to help and most likely we would make things worse. 

I'm going to follow this up with another post later about what has actually come of this vote.

Thursday, 29 August 2013

Pause For Thought With Syria

We should be careful before we get involved in Syria. It doesn't matter if the UK launches 1 missile, 100 missiles or even put troops on the ground in Syria we would be making a political statement as well as a physical attack against a Russian and Iranian backed regime. Furthermore what will Syria do in response? What will happen to Israel and Iraq? War looms and the only thing we can be sure about in its size is that it will be much more than the few missiles some people in the Government are talking about.

Life of a (Conservative) Student Part 5

I'm back on Conservative Student for a special post. This one is about Syria and about countering all the stupid reasons for why 'WE MUST GO TO WAR'. It's quite simple really, none of these arguments make a great deal of sense when considering what a mess Syria is is. You will also see that this article was written before the motion tabled for today's debate in the House of Commons was released. We are not going to war today, but probably next week. To read the article here.

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Breaking News: Full Syria Motion Revealled by the Government

The motion for tomorrow's debate is:

This House:

· Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

· Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

· Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

· Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;

· Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

· Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;

· Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

· Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, 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, and that any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and

· Notes that this resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.

Essentially this is permission to use military action against Syria's chemical Weapons but this will only come after the UN has done all that it can. When that has passed there would be another vote that may ignore what the UN says anyway. It's delayed Syrian intervention however, so perhaps a small victory. Keep writing your MPs to tell them not to vote for this motion here.

Write to Your MP About Syria

The Columnist Peter Hitchens on his blog yesterday said that we need to write to our MPs in order to try stop intervention in Syria (see It is unclear at this moment whether the Parliamentary vote for intervention will pass on Thursday because there is so much opposition on both sides of the House. I have already written to my MP Steve Barcaly urging him to vote against the motion and some people, when they saw this, asked me to write them a template email. I thought it a good idea to share you this template and urge you to write to your MP to ask them not to vote for military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.

 'Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War' says Peter Hitchens.

I'm not a technical superstar and I don't know how to do one of those jazzie websites where you can contact your MP. What I suggest you do is copy the text below and then go to where in less than two clicks you can find your MP and fill in the email message box with the text. It is a good idea to make your message more personal and add some sentences or more reasons why we should not intervene in Syria.

Please do this, the more emails your MP the receives the better informed he will be in the vote. Also Please share/tweet this around so more people can write to their MPs. Thanks.

Template Email

I write to you with concern over the trajectory that the British government is taking us over Syria. It seems inevitable that soon the Government will be moving to war against the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. I ask you to vote against any military intervention in the Syrian Civil that the government will propose in the Parliamentary debate on Thursday. There are many reason why we should not back military intervention in Syria but the most compelling is that our objectives are unclear and also will be unsuccessful.

If our objective is to protect Syrian civilians we are likely to fail. This war even if we intervene is likely to take a long time and cost many more lives. It has already cruelly killed 100,000 people before the chemical attack our action will not stop more deaths. Moreover, if our actions do not allow Assad to be defeated then he will brutally oppress anyone who he thought had any connection to the Syrian Opposition. On the other hand a Syrian Opposition victory would see an equally bloody fight for control of the government, this will be at best this will be mass civil violence at worst another civil war

Furthermore any intervention will escalate tensions causing more sad deaths across the region because the Syrian Civil War is also a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both these states are waging a war that has already spilt into Iraq and Lebanon, with a high increase of deaths in these countries. This will become much worse if the West intervenes as Iran is likely to attack our NATO ally Turkey and other friendly states in the region. The United Kingdom would also be under increased attack from terrorist forces from the Iranians.

If our intention is to bring about democracy in Syria our intervention in the country certainly will not help. If we were to intervene in Syria we would have to be more hands on politically and create the democracy there. This would lead to greater alienation from the Syrian people because the country is such a broad mix in opinions, many sceptical of the West and the Opposition. The Opposition itself is made up of a mix containing a minority of liberals and a majority of Islamists who spurn a democratic government in favour of an Islamic state. Should we chance democracy in Syria by backing Islamism? Islamism has been allowed to take control because of the lack of organisation in the Opposition. This lack of organisation is also leading to Assad having the upper hand in the conflict.

The only feasible way Syria can become a democracy is through a reorganisation of the Syrian Opposition to clearly define whether a post Assad government would be a liberal democracy or an Islamic dictatorship. The Syrian people can thus make a better decision on whether to back the opposition. If the Syrian Opposition chooses liberal democracy the Syrians will more so choose to support the Opposition and thus lead to a more likely downfall of Assad. The only way for a stable democracy to be formed in Syria is for her people to choose to accept it and for them to fight for it.

There is thus a strong moral cause against war in Syria. We will not save anymore civilian lives and we will not bring about democracy; indeed, our intervention is likely to kill more and stop democracy. This is clear in the minds of the British People too as only 9% of the public support our military action and only 16% support arming the Opposition. I appreciate that many MPs do not decide whether they are to vote for a proposed motion until they have seen it written on the order paper. But I hope that you will side with me and not vote for British militarily intervention in the Syrian conflict.

I look forward to your speedy reply.

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

MEP Adivce, Keep Away From the Smurfs

If you keep up to date with #ThingsElliottSays you will notice the support for Cllr Tom Hunt, who is now a candidate to be an MEP. Whatever you do Tom, don't play Smurf Village on your Twitter. Another of your fellow MEP candidates has been caught out.

 At least the Smurfs are blue, Smurftacular.

Dear Steve Barclay MP Re: Syria

Last night I wrote an email to Steve Barclay, the great local MP of North East Cambridgeshire. I am pretty unhappy with current government policy which is on an obvious path to war with Syria so I wrote to urge him to call for the Prime Minister to recall Parliament for a free debate and to not back any more UK intervention in Syria. The email is below.

Dear Stephen Barclay,

I write to you with great concern over current government policy about Syria. It seems inevitable that soon the Government will be moving to war against the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. I implore you to back a Commons Vote on whether we should go to war and also that you vote against military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.

What we saw recently from the Assad government with the mass use of chemical weapons, killing over a thousand of his own people, was an awful atrocity. However, the method surely makes no difference to need for intervention now, especially considering that over one hundred thousand people have already tragically perished in the conflict. What the international community have done by previously stating that the mass use of chemical weaponry was a red line was to arbitrarily set a position where they had to make a decision over whether to intervene in Syria. This red line was not made on the basis of preserving human life because we knew almost two years ago Syria would be torn apart by a bloody civil war. The red line was an attempt from Western governments to make them look tougher on Assad but they did not believe would be crossed. We have however now, almost by accident, sleep walked into having to make an unnecessary decision over Syria.

Firstly I ask for you to demand from the Prime Minster, if he is to back military intervention in Syria, that Parliament be recalled to debate and vote, with no whip in place from the Conservative Party, on whether Britain should militarily intervene at any level in Syria. Anything less than this would be a national travesty despite the Prime Ministerial prerogative power to go to war. War is a serious thing to consider and the public must have their voices heard through their elected representatives. If the Prime Minister does not recall Parliament he will have committed a grave error which will make members of the Conservative Party and members of the general public begin to question his abilities and right to govern, I would be amongst these.

When such a recall takes place I would ask you, for the reasons I shall list below, to vote against any greater intervention in Syria. I am of the opinion that we should not at all arm the Syrian Opposition, along with 58% of the public, or use any British military force against Assad, along with 74% of the public (only 9% of the general public support British military intervention). The British people rightly see that Syrian intervention is a bad thing for the Syrians and for the world; I hope to convince you to follow their sound judgement. 

It is clear we cannot mount a credible attack on Syria. The forces of Assad are some of the best in the Arab World. Attempts to create a no fly zone in Syria will come at great resistance from the very strong Syrian Air force, one of the strongest in the Arab World. It is questionable whether the Royal Air Force with a coalition of allies, like in Libya, could defeat Assad's jet fighters, even if unlike Libya there was American support. I certainly expect there to be casualties on our part if we did try to impose a no fly zone, which will only add to the dead in this war. I also think that there is a high possibility of ground troops being sent to Syria. For whatever reason such intervention will be costly and is unlikely to be successful. Assad's army is very strong is not one to underestimated, especially with chemical weapons. It is likely we'd have to fight a three way war too because our help would be, at least eventually, opposed by Islamists and terrorists already fighting to take over the country. This battle strategy does not seem at all credible; military chiefs do not believe military intervention is sensible and I think we will be facing disaster.

More importantly however there is no clear objective which we can credibly achieve in Syria. If our objective is to protect Syrian civilians we are likely to fail. This war even if we intervene is likely to take a long time and cost many more lives. At the end of it, regardless of which side wins, there will be further deaths from either a vengeful Assad, oppressing anyone who he thought had any connection to the Syrian Opposition, or in a split liberal and Islamist country who would fight over who  is in control of the government, at best this will be mass civil disturbance at worst another civil war (the latter is historically more common).

Any intervention is likely escalate tensions across the region as well because the Syrian Civil War is also a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both these states have been waging a Cold War for many years now and any intervention by the United Kingdom would make us targets for terrorist attacks from the Iranian government, putting our own citizens lives at risk. Feasibly too, as they nearly did last year before President Obama's re-election, tensions could become so much that war breaks out in the Middle East. I do not think that we should be putting the lives of our Israeli, Iraqi and Turkish allies at risk in a war which would see much life lost. Do not forget also that we would have a duty to defend our allies so British troops would be more at risk.

If our intention is to bring about democracy in Syria our intervention in the country certainly will not help. If we back the Opposition we're chancing that they will create a democratically elected government. The Opposition is currently unorganised and is made up of a large number of Islamists who wish to bring about a Islamic State with no or fake democracy. Such a situation would be backed by nobody credible in Britain. Nobody, not even the security services, can accurately say who is in control of the Syrian Opposition forces. This lack of cohesion is making sure, that unlike with the National transitional Council of Libya, that the Syrian Opposition will lose the war. 

The only feasible way Syria can become a democracy is through a reorganisation of the Syrian Opposition to clearly define whether a future Assad government would be a liberal democracy or Islamic dictatorship. The Syrian people can thus make a better decision on whether to back the opposition and withdraw support for Assad, it is worth noting that many Syrians are concerned of an Islamist takeover and back Assad despite his atrocities. If the Syrian Opposition chooses liberal democracy the Syrian people will more so choose to support the Opposition and thus lead to a more likely downfall of Assad. The only way for a stable democracy to be formed in Syria is for the Syria to choose to accept it and for them to fight for it. Sadly this means deaths that are unavoidable. 

Intervention in Syria can only mean an alienation of the Syrian people, who are much more diverse in strong opinions than in Iraq. In that country 20% of the population supported the previous Saddam government. In Syria the mix is so broad that the amount of support for interventionist forces will be comparable to Soviet support in Afghanistan during the 1980s and 1990s. Our attempt at democracy in Syria will end in failure, with many lives lost, and chaos across the Arab world.

There is thus a strong moral cause against war in Syria. I support current government policy of sanctions, aid and life saving measures being given to the Syrian people. But a change in policy to military intervention will not lessen the amount of civilian deaths in the country, it is most likely to create more, and there is not even a slim chance of creating a successful democracy. I appreciate that many MPs do not decide whether they are to vote for a proposed motion until they have seen it written on the order paper. However this matter is so grave and serious that I ask to know what your opinion is and whether you would vote for British military intervention?

I look forward to your speedy reply.

Yours Faithfully,

Elliott Johnson

Steve wrote a short reply that he will speak to me about this in person next time I see him. I'm sure I will soon receive a full letter with his official reply.

I also wrote a similar email to Lillian Greenwood MP, for Nottingham South (she is sadly Labour), where I live as a student. I asked also what Labour will be doing if Parliament is recalled, which it has been on Thursday.

Please write to your MP about Syria, it is very important.

I'll keep you updated with replies.