The ways of the House of Commons are as convoluted as a three-dimensional spider's web and the unwary, as well as the 'planks', can easily become entangled. Thus it was with that walking-talking 'plank', Jeremy Corbyn and his disciples, when they debated whether or not Mrs. May was "a very naughty girl" for tossing a few rockets into Assad's backyard in, probably, a totally futile attempt to stop him poison-gassing his own people. To be frank, I don't quite understand the Parliamentary procedure either but I know a lady who does - Ms. Isabel Hardman from The Spectator. She explains it, thus:
Govt wins Syria vote
Parliament has spent the past 24 hours (with a small break for MPs to sleep) debating the military action taken against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability. That debate has now come to an end, with the government winning a vote on the emergency motion tabled by Jeremy Corbyn about the rights of Parliament when it comes to authorising military action. This debate did not go quite as well as it could have done, for either side. Firstly, Corbyn had to table a neutral motion under Commons rules, which meant MPs were merely voting ‘That this House has considered Parliament’s rights in relation to the approval of military action by British Forces overseas.’ In protest at the government's decision to proceed with strikes without first consulting Parliament, Labour voted against its own motion, which meant it was literally saying the House had not considered something it had spent three hours discussing. Naturally, this meant the Labour whips were a tad confused, mistakenly telling some MPs that they should be voting for the motion (Corbyn also managed to say this in his first speech in the Commons, later contradicting himself and telling MPs to vote against his motion), before clarifying that they actually meant they should vote against. If you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention.
Seriously - no, I really mean 'seriously' - can you imagine this cretin actually running the country?