Tag Archives: air strikes

The jingoism that betrayed MPs’ ignorance over Syria – Corbyn


From Jeremy Corbyn’s Huffington Post interview:

The UK’s recent decision to join the US and other states in bombing ISIL in Syria was fiercely opposed by Corbyn – and still is. The House of Commons voted by a big majority to join the coalition, and 66 Labour MPs backed military action after an impassioned speech by Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn.

But the Labour leader makes clear he unhappy at the reaction on the night. “What I was appalled by was the end of that debate, with mainly Conservative MPs waving their order papers around, clapping and cheering,” he says.

“Sorry, we were voting to send bombers in to bomb targets, putting servicemen and women at risk, civilians at risk, you can’t cheer when you’re going to war. That is 1914 Jingoism, that is past.”

Corbyn adds: “I think we rushed into something without enough thought. I made my point in my own speech to Parliament, very carefully. I asked a series of questions and I don’t believe I had proper answers to those questions. Even the Daily Mail said that the questions I’d put – which we thought about very carefully in my office – were relevant questions and have not actually been answered.

The Sun newspaper has reported that not a single one of the RAF’s much-hailed Brimstone missiles has been fired in Syria because of a lack of targets. Does that help his own case on Syria?

“It proves something doesn’t it? The Brimstone missiles I was told never miss a target, sorry if you get a target wrong and we all make mistakes.”

“I quote in my speech a Syrian family who live in this constituency. They are not lovers of the regime, they are not lovers of the Opposition, they are lovers of their family and life and they said our family is at risk.”

Source: Jeremy Corbyn Interview: On His First 100 Days, Leadership, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton And Tyson Fury

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Former DPP Keir Starmer is no pacifist – but he won’t support air strikes in Syria

Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer.

Here’s former Director of Public Prosecutions, now Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras.

I am not a pacifist and I would back a lawful, coherent and compelling case for the use of military force by the UK against Isis. But, having deliberated carefully on the issue, I am driven to the conclusion that the strategy outlined by the prime minister is flawed.

In my view, airstrikes without an effective ground force are unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to defeating Isis. And there is no effective ground force. If, through international collaboration, a ground force can be agreed, the situation would be different. But the prime minister’s reliance on what he calls “around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups” to retake the ground from Isis is wholly unrealistic. These fighters are from a disparate number of groups with varying motivations and capabilities. They are also, by definition, opposition fighters and it is difficult to see how the UK and its allies could protect them in retaking ground from Isis without getting drawn into conflict with Russia.

When pushed on this issue in the House of Commons last week, the prime minister retreated to a suggestion that “the best troops” would be the Syrian army after a political transition in Syria. But that only underscores the central weakness in the prime minister’s case and reinforces my view that the defeat of Isis and the ending of the civil war in Syria are inextricably linked.

In the circumstances, I do not intend to vote in support of the prime minister’s current strategy. I accept that Isis must be defeated and I would be happy to consider a revised strategy. But the current plan is flawed.

Source: Airstrikes in Syria are lawful, but I’ll be voting against them

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

John Mann is a Corbyn critic – but like Corbyn he opposes air strikes in Syria

John Mann.

John Mann.

He couldn’t resist having a crack at his leader – saying he was setting out his position on air strikes before the shadow cabinet came to a decision as he was not willing to be whipped on it – but John Mann still said he would vote the same way: Against.

And he’s to be praised for it.

How many Labour MPs are preparing to vote with David Cameron, simply to snub a leader whose politics they dislike? If This Writer’s sources are to be believed, only a handful – and some of them may reconsider in the knowledge that Mr Mann has made a decision to vote alongside the Labour leader – because he believes it is right.

Here’s the conclusion to the reasoned explanation of his position:

I have no problem with the ethics or morality of the UK being involved in military action to remove ISIS. They are a terrorist force that will continue their attempts to murder and enslave everyone who refuses to bow to their ideology and continue to attack the West.

However the proposal from David Cameron will fail.

A few extra planes attacking defined targets in Syria are neither a solution, nor are they much assistance. This approach is more of a gesture. Syria needs more than gestures.

What is needed is a UN mandate for unified military action, led by Arab nations, with the Russians and others. We should play our part in winning such a mandate and in then delivering it.

There should be an immediate ceasefire as part of this mandate for all of the non-ISIS controlled area of Syria – which means for most of the country including all of that controlled by the Syrian government. Obviously a long term peace plan and settlement must be negotiated using the security of a UN ceasefire.

That mandate should include the creation of safe zones, including a long term security for the Kurds and Yazidis and should also initiate a plan for the resettlement of the millions of Syrian refugees.

There are many other elements needed to curtail Islamic terrorism worldwide, but Cameron’s proposal does nothing whatsoever on them and makes such initiatives more unlikely.

I will therefore be voting against the Government’s current proposals.

Source: Vote on the RAF taking part in air strikes against ISIS in Syria

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Paula Sheriff: Labour’s Dewsbury and Mirfield MP opposes air strikes

Paula Sheriff MP.

Paula Sheriff MP.

The situation in Syria is incredibly complex and I am deeply conscious that at the heart of this debate are millions of innocent civilians.

Without doubt the world cannot sit back while this humanitarian crisis persists and I certainly do not advocate a policy of passively doing nothing.

However, I do not believe that the airstrikes proposed by the Prime Minister are the best form of action to take at this time and I am also unconvinced that there are currently ground forces with the capability to defeat ISIS / Daesh, without which airstrikes are of extremely limited use even just for a military strategy.

On this basis the Prime Minister has failed to convince me that pursuing air strikes in Syria is part of a longer-term and comprehensive strategy and I therefore intend to vote against the motion.

Source: My Position on Syria.

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Greenwich and Woolwich MP weighs in against air strikes in Syria

Matthew Pennycook MP.

Matthew Pennycook MP.

Matthew Pennycook is another new Labour Party MP – elected to the Greenwich and Woolwich seat in May this year – who has decided to oppose David Cameron’s plan for air strikes in Syria.

His reasons, posted on the Internet yesterday (November 30) should be familiar by now: Air strikes will do no good alone, and the ground forces that are supposed to exist are David Cameron’s fantasy. He concludes:

The Prime Minister has gone to great efforts to convince Parliament that an extension of British airstrikes against Daesh in Syria is necessary and will achieve its stated objectives. His measured tone and the manner in which he has sought to build consensus around military action are appreciated.

However, on balance I believe that his case remains a weak one which, stripped of its wishful thinking, amounts to little more than a belief that military action is the litmus test of solidarity with our allies and our security.

As I write this, no formal proposal has been put to MPs following the Prime Minister’s statement last week. If new information comes to light or more compelling arguments are put before me I may be persuaded to think again but as things stand I intend to vote against the extension of airstrikes against Daesh in Syria.

Source: British airstrikes against Daesh in Syria

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Cardiff Central MP will vote against air strikes in Syria

151201jo-stevens

Cardiff Central MP Jo Stevens.

Jo Stevens, Labour’s new MP for Cardiff Central, has added her voice to the growing number raised against David Cameron’s foolish plan to bomb Syria for no good reason. She explains her reasons as follows:

Before David Cameron’s statement on 26th November, I had reached a provisional view that I could not support air strikes. On Thursday, nothing in that statement reassured me that air strikes would strengthen, rather than undermine, our national security which has to be the overriding test to apply to any proposal. In fact, I felt it added very little to what the Prime Minister had already told Parliament earlier in the week.

The overwhelming (96%) view of many Cardiff Central constituents who have contacted me and with whom I have had conversations about the issue, has reinforced my initial view.

I will be voting against air strikes.

We need a comprehensive and coherent strategy coordinated through the United Nations to defeat ISIL/Daesh. What is being proposed is neither a UN-led strategy nor an implementation plan by the international community coordinated by the UN, which must be much wider than the US, France and the UK and must include Syria’s regional neighbours.

Political and diplomatic action to erode the ISIL/Daesh base of support must be prioritised and this has to include halting the flow of funds and weapons at source. The Government’s plan does not address this and I have heard nothing to suggest that this is a priority.

The Prime Minister accepts that ground forces will be needed to capitalise on air strikes and defeat ISIL/Daesh. However, the suggestion that there are 70,000 troops of the Free Syria Army sufficiently organised to travel across Syria through Assad and jihadist held territory under air attack from Russia to join Kurdish fighters (who are being bombed by our NATO ally, Turkey) to re-take territory freed from ISIL/Daesh control, is neither credible nor plausible. I am extremely concerned that Parliament is being asked to vote on joining a war in Syria based on a paucity of convincing evidence about ground troops, which has echoes of the WMD evidence that led to our disastrous and erroneous war in Iraq.

A coordinated international humanitarian response to the existing population displacement and refugee crisis is also missing from the Government’s proposal, never mind a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the additional displacement and support for the exodus of refugees that will inevitably occur. The “donor” conference being held in January 2016 by the Government is a woefully inadequate and belated proposal.

There is a lack of clear objectives on rebuilding and reconstruction post air strikes, which were major failings in the UK’s interventions in Iraq and Libya. The lessons from those military interventions are clear, yet the Government appears not to have taken them on board.

Finally, I remain unconvinced that UK air strikes will reduce the threat of an ISIL/Daesh terror attack in the UK. I believe that air strikes may increase the threat. I am concerned that our involvement will lead to potential further radicalisation of young people when so much effort is being made by the Muslim community here to prevent this.

Source: Air Strikes in Syria – Vote

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

‘Free vote’ on air strikes plan suggests Corbyn is playing a long game

The reasonable face of British politics: Jeremy Corbyn.

The reasonable face of British politics: Jeremy Corbyn.


This Blog has just learned that Jeremy Corbyn is to offer a free vote to Labour MPs on Tory PM David Cameron’s proposals for the UK to bomb Syria – but will make clear that Labour party policy is to oppose airstrikes.

His decision averts the threat of a mass shadow cabinet walkout while making it clear that his own firmly-held opposition to airstrikes is official Labour party policy, backed by the membership.

He will also call on Cameron to delay the vote until after he has addressed Labour Party concerns over his justification for the bombing – and has already written to the prime minister calling for a full, two-day debate.

This suggests Corbyn is playing what some people describe as a “long game”.

If Cameron agrees to delay a vote until after he has made another attempt to justify himself, this will give the Labour leadership time for a full assessment of responses to Mr Corbyn’s emailed consultation of party members.

MPs will be able to see precisely how members in their own constituencies have responded and what arguments they have put forward.

This means those who have expressed support for bombings may find themselves at odds with their own constituency membership. What will that mean for their own future, if they go ahead with support for a Conservative motion?

It seems to This Writer that Labour MPs who still plan to support the Tories are courting deselection before the next election, to be replaced by candidates who more accurately reflect party policy (which is to block air strikes, let’s not forget).

Cameron will face a dilemma over his plan to demand a vote this week, as undecided Labour MPs are more likely to support party policy in the absence of full information from the consultation or any further justification from Cameron.

Prior to the announcement This Writer would have preferred Corbyn to have whipped his members to vote against air strikes.

But this move is, potentially, a stroke of genius.

It hamstrings Cameron and the rebels, provides time for heated emotions to calm, and creates openings for the Labour Party’s future.

Of course, some commentators haven’t seen it like that.

Ed Balls’ former head of policy, Karim Palant, has tweeted: “This is the right decision in the circumstances. But poor handling has hurt leader’s standing with his supporters.” Oh, really?

It seems to me that any “poor handling” was carried out by the Blairites who briefed against Corbyn in the Tory rags. They misinformed the media and created a stir that was altogether unnecessary.

Corbyn stands unblemished as a result of all this; he has demonstrated – as well as it is possible to do so – that his view is supported by the majority of the party, and it is his opponents who are on the wrong side of the argument.

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Three-quarters of Labour Party members oppose air strikes. Will MPs defy them?

The shadow cabinet was due to meet to decide Labour’s stance on Syria [Image: Sean Dempsey/PA].

The shadow cabinet was due to meet to decide Labour’s stance on Syria [Image: Sean Dempsey/PA].

A consultation of Labour Party members has shown 75 per cent of them oppose UK participation in air strikes in Syria, according to a representative sample.

Jeremy Corbyn emailed members on Friday, seeking their views. He received 107,875 responses, of which 64,771 were confirmed as from full Party members (the email and its response address were widely publicised immediately upon its release, so it is necessary to make the distinction).

That’s far too many for Labour staff to be able to provide a full report within a morning, so the statement is based on a sample of replies from 1,900 party members. It runs as follows:

A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn, issued Friday 27th November, has shown that 75 per cent of Labour party members who have responded oppose UK bombing in Syria.

107,875 responses were received of which 64,771 were confirmed as full individual Labour Party members. The remainder included affiliated supporters and registered supporters.

Random sampling, of full individual Labour Party members who responded to the email, has shown:

75 per cent are against UK bombing in Syria

13 per cent are for UK bombing in Syria

11 per cent are undecided on the issue.

The Guardian, reporting the statement in its live politics blog, has rather inkindly claimed: “This 75% figure is quite a lot higher than the figure YouGov produced when it surveyed Labour members last week. It found that only 58% of Labour member were opposed to air strikes. (See 10.36am) But that is because this is a self-selecting survey, rather than a proper poll, and in survey like this the views of those highly motivated to participate always tend to be over-represented.”

That’s a little disingenuous.

Everybody with an opinion was invited to participate, and we should accept that everybody who wanted to express that opinion has done so. Therefore we should accept the figure as representative of the views of the Labour Party – until the full result, recording all 100,000+ opinions, can be published in the future.

Considering the huge volume of responses, it would be wrong to blame Labour for basing an initial press release on a representative selection.

Where does this leave Labour’s MPs?

The vast majority, who are prepared to follow the Party line as voted through – unanimously – at Conference in September, will follow Jeremy Corbyn’s lead. NEC member Bex Bailey has tried to claim that the criteria for action outlined in the motion have been met, but this is a voice in the wilderness; consensus is that they have not.

But those who have said they are inclined to vote in favour of air strikes must now decide whether they wish to defy the will of their own electorate in order to support Conservative prime minister David Cameron.

They now know it is a choice that could end their careers.

So: Tom Watson, Hilary Benn, Chris Bryant, Chuka Umunna, and the handful of others who agree with you – what justification can you supply for your position?

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Shadow cabinet resignations over Syria? More like media smoke-and-mirrors

Safe: Nobody criticising Jeremy Corbyn is willing to put their name to their words, apart from one backbencher. He’s looking pretty safe.

The BBC seems a little confused about Jeremy Corbyn and the vote over air-strikes in Syria.

Under a headline threatening shadow cabinet resignations, the Corporation’s story then presented absolutely no shadow cabinet members who threatened to resign. Not one!

In fact the first MP quoted in the story said he would not resign, and the story follows up with further expressions of support for Corbyn’s view:

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn, who backs air strikes, has said he will not resign over the issue. He said Labour MPs might “end up” being given a free vote to avoid further rows.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell tweeted: “On Syria, can everyone calm down. We’re all simply working through the issues and coming to final decision. Don’t mistake democracy for division.”

Shadow justice secretary Lord Falconer said he had “got no problem” with Mr Corbyn’s letter and there was no question of resignations.

Nobody in the shadow cabinet appeared willing to go on the record with their criticisms. Does this indicate cowardice on their part?

Instead we get:

Mr Corbyn’s decision to send a message to Labour MPs before they had reached agreement on a common position angered some senior shadow cabinet members. One told BBC News: “There will be resignations among senior members of the shadow cabinet over this.”

Others, who did not wish to be named, have warned that Mr Corbyn could face frontbench walk-outs if he opts to whip any vote on air strikes, rather than allowing MPs to vote with their conscience.

What hogwash. If they weren’t prepared to put their names behind these comments, the BBC should not have quoted them. Do they even exist or were the comments made up?

The only person who appeared willing to put his name to an adverse comment was John Spellar, a member of the defence select committee. If you’re anything like This Writer, you’re probably asking yourself, “Who’s he?”

From his comment, he’s a person in the wrong political party. Was he parachuted into a safe seat by the Blairites? Take a look at what he had to say:

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: “How does Jeremy Corbyn and his small group of tiny Trots in the bunker think they’ve got the unique view on it all?

It’s the sort of comment that should inspire The Sun to headline it, “Phew, what a loony!”

Except, the editor of The Sun probably agrees with Mr Spellar.

Phew. What a loony.

Source: Jeremy Corbyn faces threat of shadow cabinet resignations – BBC News

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook