This week, the Commons could see a vote on extending British air strikes against Islamic State (IS) from Iraq and into Syria, fulfilling a long-held ambition of David Cameron, who reportedly once told aides that "we've got to go out and kill the bastards."
Of most immediate concern to Cameron is the balance of opinion in the House of Commons, where he is likely to need cross-party support to win the vote. But he also needs to consider the views of the public—and of the press. We've run down where each section of political society stands concerning the extending of strikes.
The Labour party is much more divided—to the point where the party's internal war has grabbed even greater headlines than the actual war raging in the Middle East. Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist party leader from Labour's hard left, opposes the strikes, and made this clear in a letter to MPs last week, despite having said the party would have until Monday to make a decision. Momentum, the party's new left-wing pressure group founded by Corbyn supporters, has been lobbying MPs to oppose strikes. On the other hand, many within Corbyn's party—including much of his Shadow Cabinet and his Deputy Leader Tom Watson—support strikes in Syria. The crucial question for Labour today is whether Jeremy Corbyn imposes a whip on his MPs or allows them to vote with their conscience. A free vote would likely lead to more MPs voting in favour of strikes and an easier day for David Cameron. A whip could lead to civil war and mass resignations from the Shadow Cabinet.
One final group MPs will be paying attention to is the influential Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by the Tory Crispin Blunt. Until last week, the committee opposed extending strikes into Syria. Last week, Blunt suggested he might support the action, widely reported as a major victory for Cameron. Speaking on an episode of the BBC's Week in Westminster broadcast on Saturday, he was careful to play down the effectiveness of strikes per se, saying "I deliberately did not mention air strikes in the terms of what I was endorsing, what I was endorsing was the Prime Minister's request for the UK to be a full member of the coalition, and in my view that's slightly different." His fellow committee member Stephen Gethins of the SNP said he felt the Prime Minister had not yet made the case, as Gethins was sceptical about where the 70,000 moderate regional ground troops Cameron had promised would come from.
Verdict: the general view among pundits and parliamentarians is that Cameron will win the vote, if it happens.
The Mail: The paper's editorial said on Saturday that, while its staff felt divided on the issue and "it sickens the Mail to find ourselves in the same camp as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell... this paper believes the case for bombing Syria has not yet been made."
The Observer: The paper's editorial said on Sunday that "if a lasting political settlement is to be reached in [Iraq or Syria], it is absolutely essential that Sunni interests and aspirations are fully recognised... practical, credible measures to attain this political imperative are nowhere to be found in Mr Cameron’s strategy."
Sitting somewhat on the fence are:
The Independent: The paper says that "if British jets do start taking part in the air war against Isis in Syria, it is vital that the end goal of this military intervention—the hastening of a political and diplomatic settlement to the conflicts in both Iraq and Syria—is not forgotten."
In support of strikes are:
The Sunday Times: "The situation in Syria is complex but the case for airstrikes is straightforward," the paper said on Sunday, "it is an absurdity that Britain is allowed to target Isis in Iraq, but not across the border in its Syrian heartland."
The Times: "Britain should join allies in attacking Isis in Raqqa but it will not land a fatal blow on the jihadists," the paper concluded."
The Sun: Britain's biggest-selling tabloid has long supported strikes against IS in Syria, arguing at the end of the summer that this would help solve the refugee crisis facing Europe.
Verdict: the press are fairly split on justification for the strikes, and the main sources of scepticism are the credibility of Cameron's plan for what happens once IS is defeated, and the supposed 70,000 moderate regional ground troops he says will help him. That said, even those papers which oppose the strikes concede that there is a strong case for them.
Survation's polling gives a more complex picture, and has been used by some opponents of military action, who quote the top-line figure that only 15 per cent of respondents supported the UK independently launching air strikes in the wake of the Paris attacks. But here, Cameron may be encouraged by the fact that 52 per cent support a more measured, multilateral response, military or otherwise, backed by a UN resolution. This is what Cameron says he is offering. Following Cameron's statement, Survation ran a survey which found that 48 per cent of people agreed with Britain beginning airstrikes against Islamic State alongside France and the US and 30 per cent of people disagreed.
Perhaps surprisingly, ComRes has found that 46 per cent would support airstrikes even without UN approval, while 32 per cent would not.
Verdict: Anthony Wells, the YouGov pollster and author of the highly respected UK Polling Report blog, writes that "the overall picture is pretty clearly one where the balance of public support is in favour of airstrikes."
Of most immediate concern to Cameron is the balance of opinion in the House of Commons, where he is likely to need cross-party support to win the vote. But he also needs to consider the views of the public—and of the press. We've run down where each section of political society stands concerning the extending of strikes.
The Commons
David Cameron's Conservative party is fairly united in favour of strikes, but there could be a few rebels—and given Cameron's small majority, that could be significant. Last time there was a vote on extending air strikes into Syria, in 2013, 30 Tory MPs rebelled. This time, the number is likely to be much reduced, with some estimates putting it in single figures. The composition of the Conservative parliamentary party has changed, with the 2015 intake thought of as very pro-Cameron. And the Prime Minister has put his case in studiedly careful language, seeking to lay out his strategy in more detail than in 2013.The Labour party is much more divided—to the point where the party's internal war has grabbed even greater headlines than the actual war raging in the Middle East. Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist party leader from Labour's hard left, opposes the strikes, and made this clear in a letter to MPs last week, despite having said the party would have until Monday to make a decision. Momentum, the party's new left-wing pressure group founded by Corbyn supporters, has been lobbying MPs to oppose strikes. On the other hand, many within Corbyn's party—including much of his Shadow Cabinet and his Deputy Leader Tom Watson—support strikes in Syria. The crucial question for Labour today is whether Jeremy Corbyn imposes a whip on his MPs or allows them to vote with their conscience. A free vote would likely lead to more MPs voting in favour of strikes and an easier day for David Cameron. A whip could lead to civil war and mass resignations from the Shadow Cabinet.
One final group MPs will be paying attention to is the influential Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by the Tory Crispin Blunt. Until last week, the committee opposed extending strikes into Syria. Last week, Blunt suggested he might support the action, widely reported as a major victory for Cameron. Speaking on an episode of the BBC's Week in Westminster broadcast on Saturday, he was careful to play down the effectiveness of strikes per se, saying "I deliberately did not mention air strikes in the terms of what I was endorsing, what I was endorsing was the Prime Minister's request for the UK to be a full member of the coalition, and in my view that's slightly different." His fellow committee member Stephen Gethins of the SNP said he felt the Prime Minister had not yet made the case, as Gethins was sceptical about where the 70,000 moderate regional ground troops Cameron had promised would come from.
Verdict: the general view among pundits and parliamentarians is that Cameron will win the vote, if it happens.
The press
Ranged against extending strikes into Syria are:The Mail: The paper's editorial said on Saturday that, while its staff felt divided on the issue and "it sickens the Mail to find ourselves in the same camp as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell... this paper believes the case for bombing Syria has not yet been made."
The Observer: The paper's editorial said on Sunday that "if a lasting political settlement is to be reached in [Iraq or Syria], it is absolutely essential that Sunni interests and aspirations are fully recognised... practical, credible measures to attain this political imperative are nowhere to be found in Mr Cameron’s strategy."
Sitting somewhat on the fence are:
The Independent: The paper says that "if British jets do start taking part in the air war against Isis in Syria, it is vital that the end goal of this military intervention—the hastening of a political and diplomatic settlement to the conflicts in both Iraq and Syria—is not forgotten."
In support of strikes are:
The Sunday Times: "The situation in Syria is complex but the case for airstrikes is straightforward," the paper said on Sunday, "it is an absurdity that Britain is allowed to target Isis in Iraq, but not across the border in its Syrian heartland."
The Times: "Britain should join allies in attacking Isis in Raqqa but it will not land a fatal blow on the jihadists," the paper concluded."
The Sun: Britain's biggest-selling tabloid has long supported strikes against IS in Syria, arguing at the end of the summer that this would help solve the refugee crisis facing Europe.
Verdict: the press are fairly split on justification for the strikes, and the main sources of scepticism are the credibility of Cameron's plan for what happens once IS is defeated, and the supposed 70,000 moderate regional ground troops he says will help him. That said, even those papers which oppose the strikes concede that there is a strong case for them.
The Public
Pollsters have unsurprisingly been working hard to calculate public opinion on this issue. Comparing YouGov polling in 2013 with another survey conducted this month, Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, writes for Prospect that "last time supporters of all four parties opposed air strikes; this time all four sets of supporters back them." YouGov's polling shows strong support for these strikes, and even some, less emphatic support for ground-based fighting.Survation's polling gives a more complex picture, and has been used by some opponents of military action, who quote the top-line figure that only 15 per cent of respondents supported the UK independently launching air strikes in the wake of the Paris attacks. But here, Cameron may be encouraged by the fact that 52 per cent support a more measured, multilateral response, military or otherwise, backed by a UN resolution. This is what Cameron says he is offering. Following Cameron's statement, Survation ran a survey which found that 48 per cent of people agreed with Britain beginning airstrikes against Islamic State alongside France and the US and 30 per cent of people disagreed.
Perhaps surprisingly, ComRes has found that 46 per cent would support airstrikes even without UN approval, while 32 per cent would not.
Verdict: Anthony Wells, the YouGov pollster and author of the highly respected UK Polling Report blog, writes that "the overall picture is pretty clearly one where the balance of public support is in favour of airstrikes."
