CAMERON’S ILL-JUDGED INSULT WAS UNWORTHY OF A PRIME MINISTER

THE House of Commons has a reputation for rising to the occasion for great debates on the eve of war. But yesterday’s argument about whether British pilots should bomb in Syria was (with a handful of eloquent contributions, mainly from the backbenches) a squalid affair.

This is entirely the fault of the Prime Minister. David Cameron should have been statesmanlike. Instead he was partisan. His remark to Tory MPs that ‘you should not be walking through the lobbies [ie voting] with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers’ was unworthy of a British prime minister.

Mr Cameron was repeatedly called upon to retract that comment yesterday. A real leader would instantly have done so. The Prime Minister’s refusal was the cause of a great deal of ill-feeling, and understandably so.

The logical extension of the Prime Minister’s remarks (which Downing Street insisted last night were only meant to apply to a tiny coterie surrounding the Labour leader) is that anybody who expresses doubt about the wisdom of bombing Syria is somehow a supporter of political violence.

If you accept that conclusion, then the Prime Minister’s insult was not simply aimed at the Left-wing allies of Jeremy Corbyn who walked through the No lobby last night.

It also applies to John Baron, a former British army officer who served in Northern Ireland when terrorism was at its height. Mr Baron warned that in proposing this action, Britain risked repeating the errors of the past, and was setting out on a ‘tragic, misguided path once more’.

For that matter, the Prime Minister’s remarks would also apply to the Daily Mail, which warned last week that David Cameron has not yet convincingly made the case for war.

Indeed, the epithet ‘terrorist sympathiser’ might also thus be applied to the many experts who are entirely unconvinced by David Cameron’s claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrians ready and willing to join the fight against IS on the ground.

AND where does that 70,000 figure leave the Prime Minister himself? The experts have pointed out that the only way of reaching that 70,000 is to include groups who have fought alongside jihadists. So Mr Cameron is unnervingly close to including Al-Nusra, whose supporters have issued chilling statements in praise of the Paris bombings three weeks ago, in his anti-Islamic State Coalition.

I don’t want to create the impression, however, that every opponent of bombing possesses an honour and integrity which has been maligned by the premier’s ill-advised comment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The office of Labour MP Stella Creasy, who was undecided ahead of the vote, was yesterday surrounded by a gang of thugs, forcing Ms Creasy to leave the Commons Chamber repeatedly to check that her staff were safe. Other Labour MPs who are pro-war have been forced to endure horrifying abuse over social media. One has been sent a picture of a dead baby with a warning that if he supports bombing he will be responsible for the loss of innocent civilian lives. This kind of conduct is unforgivable.

Meanwhile, polls last night suggested that around half of all British voters are opposed to the military adventure in Syria. If that is true, has David Cameron just damned more than 20million of his fellow citizens as ‘terrorist sympathisers’ on the basis that they have not been convinced by his sales pitch?

One further problem with the Prime Minister’s use of language is that it closes down debate – and is intended to do so. In truth, all of us find it very difficult indeed to make a final judgment about how best to confront IS.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, he is right when he says that Britain should go to the aid of France, our stricken ally. It is also very hard to argue with him when he asks why, since IS refuses to observe the border between Iraq and Syria, Britain should obligingly do so, since we are already bombing in Iraq?

It comes as no surprise that honourable men and women should be swayed by these powerful arguments. But the anti-war lobby also has lucid points about the risk of civilian casualties, the lack of ground troops and any viable political strategy for the future health of Syria. It is, of course, utterly essential in a parliamentary democracy such as ours that these arguments should be heard. But over recent decades, British policy has been marred by an unfortunate convention – an unwritten rule that both the main political parties should agree about foreign affairs.

Labour and Tories both supported the calamitous invasion of Iraq, the disastrous advance into Helmand Province in Afghanistan, and the air attacks on Libya four years ago, which have left an appalling power vacuum into which terrorists are swarming.

Many faults he may have, but in Mr Corbyn we have an opposition leader who asks the right questions rather than tamely swallowing the government line (as Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith did in 2003 over Iraq).

It is most unfortunate that when he does so, his motives should be traduced in the way that David Cameron did on Tuesday night.

Mr Corbyn was one of just 13 MPs who voted against the attack on Libya in 2011. In retrospect, this stand was admirable and brave, while David Cameron’s decision to defy the advice of his senior adviser, General Sir David Richards, and order air strikes, today looks reckless indeed.

YESTERDAY came the appalling news that IS has taken advantage of David Cameron’s Libyan intervention to establish a new headquarters in Eastern Libya, yet another base from which it can menace Europe.

There are important parallels between the mistaken bombing raids on Libya and the latest proposal to attack Syria. In Syria, as in Libya, we have no real knowledge or understanding of our likely partners on the ground, and nothing like a viable political plan to follow the military action. The fact is that brave young British servicemen may be risking their lives in the skies over Syria in the coming weeks. Innocent Syrian civilians who have nothing to do with terrorism may well be killed or wounded as a result of last night’s vote.

David Cameron should not have tried to seek partisan political advantage out of the debate. By doing so, he has failed to show proper statesmanship at a time of national crisis.