Labour MPs must consider all arguments before voting on how to combat terrorism

Interesting that LabourList is steering well clear of any comment on the infighting within the Parliamentary Labour Party over Syria, settling for a comment that “some backbenchers” may push for a free vote.

It is an emotive subject.

But heads must win over hearts, and Jeremy Corbyn has put forward the most reasonable course of action against the terrorist threat, which is to choke off their funds and their supply of weapons, and bring them to the negotiating table.

David Cameron’s plan for airstrikes against a foe he hasn’t even located will only lead to more terrorism and waste a huge amount of public money, as discussed in a previous Vox Political article.

It is to be hoped that Labour MPs take care to examine all sides of the arguments before reaching their decision. If you have a Labour MP, perhaps now’s the time to contact him or her, with This Blog’s web address.

David Cameron will lay out the Government’s plans for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria on Thursday, with the intention of a Commons vote next week, he announced today. He said he wanted MPs to have the opportunity to consider the plans before voting on them, meaning that Labour will likely come to an official position at the Shadow Cabinet meeting next Tuesday morning.

During this afternoon statement on the Defence Review, Cameron also said that the debate on Trident renewal next year would be followed by a vote “at the appropriate moment” – sparking speculation that it will be scheduled for a time that would cause most damage for Labour.

Responding to the Prime Minister’s statement in the Commons, Jeremy Corbyn attacked Cameron over police cuts, saying that “the public will not understand or accept any cuts to frontline policing”.

He also accused Cameron of breaching “the spirit of the Armed Forces Covenant”, which recognises the moral obligation to look after members of the armed forces, with the planned cuts to tax credits.

Several high-profile Labour MPs also questioned the PM over the review, including Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Chris Leslie, Pat McFadden, and backbench defence committee chair John Woodcock.

With the vote on Syria not expected until late next week, MPs will probably use next Monday’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party to make their views known, before a party line is settled on Tuesday. Some backbenchers are understood to be planning to push for a free vote this week.

Source: Labour must come to Syria decision as Cameron announces vote next week | LabourList

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


2 thoughts on “Labour MPs must consider all arguments before voting on how to combat terrorism

  1. ian725

    Jeremy has it correct in that lack of Funds will hurt. Bombing is ineffectual without the support of professional allied ground troops along with logistical support. These would form a ring to protect facilities for the training of Syrian and neighboring personnel. All sorts of supplies for both the allied troops and civilians will need to be flown in. it is not a short campaign and a strategic plan over the next 2 years will have to be worked out. It will be quite a while before these terrorists are forced to the negotiating table… indeed if ever.. and that also should be considered.

  2. mohandeer

    It is quite ridiculous that Parliamentarians either side of the aisle are even considering military involvement in Syria. Not only can we not afford it (at least approx. 20 million of us cannot) but our military contribution would be an embarrassment to the UK since in reality, we are neither needed nor would we be noticed such is our insignificance in the grand scheme of things. As long as Qatar, Saudi, Kuwait and other Middle East dictatorships with their Wahabbi/salafist extremist ideology continue to fund the terrorist (al Qaeda is wahabbi extremist) and promote their fanatical adherence ideology, no amount of bombing and boots on the ground will defeat the terrorist threat. Qatar(a Wahabbis state who created Muslim Brotherhood) has drafted an open letter, the letter is truly unique, in fact, it says that the “International Union of Muslim Scholars supports the actions of the Russian authorities in Syria”. This is likely a direct response to the UN’s decision to label all terrorist organisations in Syria as terrorists and the pursuance of Article 51 and the likelihood of an International Court to investigate sponsors of IS and be made accountable.Some of the lesser states & regimes may well find themselves being sanctioned for their continued atrocities against Assad and his people. Qatar has even gone as far as stipulating that the Syrian people should be allowed to decide. This is how we fight IS – we take away their backers and leave them isolated with no friendly safe havens. The diplomatic solution is the only sensible response, one which IS will not be invited to and Saudi/Qatar and the other Wahabbist “Sovereign States” will be fearful of who will also have to adhere to any UN International Court “Article”.

Comments are closed.