In essence Ed Milliband's position on Syria was essentially the same as the government's. Hence he needed to lose to avoid people noticing that his position is tactical rather than based upon principle.
There are a number of principled positions. However, his position was pure oppositionism. He now faces the real difficulty that although his amendment failed he also voted against the substantive and defeated that.
How can he justify that?
Comments
So you put down Cameron's failure to convince 60 of his own MPs (and many LDs) to vote for his own motion as a real difficulty for Ed Milliband?!
Plus you keep saying that Milliband's amendment was the same as the gov. motion- so why did the gov. not vote for it and thus at least ensure that amended motion was carried?
The vote on the motion was after the vote on the amendment. Hence if someone voted for the amendment, but after that opposed the motion they need to be able to explain their reasoning from a position of principle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10278338/Syrian-crisis-Ed-Miliband-faces-growing-criticism-from-Labour-ranks.html