Dan Hodges in the Torygraph:
David Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Syria after the Paris attacks
So now there is no longer any dispute or debate – not that there ever really was. Jeremy Corbyn is neither willing nor able to keep the people of this country safe from terrorist attack. The idea of him actually securing the office to which he nominally aspires – prime minister of the United Kingdom – would be laughable, were it not so terrifying. But the fact he doesn’t hold that position doesn’t mean he is without influence.
Yesterday, David Cameron was asked about the possibility of authorising UK airstrikes on Isil in Syria, in the wake of the Paris attacks. In response he trotted out what has no become his standard line. "I have always said I think that it is sensible that we should: Isil don't recognise a border between Iraq and Syria and neither should we but I need to build the argument, I need to take it to parliament, I need to convince more people. We won’t hold that vote unless we can see that parliament would endorse action because to fail on this would be damaging. It is not a question of damaging the government it is a question of not damaging our country and its reputation in the world”.
In other words, “I’d like to act, but my hands are tied”. Up until Friday I had some sympathy with the prime minister on this. He tried to do the decent thing in Syria in 2013, but was undermined by the duplicity of Ed Miliband, who gave him assurances of Labour support, then reneged. But Paris has changed all that. The person binding David Cameron’s hands now is David Cameron himself. And the time has come for him to demonstrate the leadership and the political courage to break free.
The prime minister has told the country we need to conduct air strikes on Isil to keep people safe on the streets of Britain. Some people may question that judgement, but it is the view David Cameron holds, and has publicly articulated. And therefore he must now follow through on it.
Given the immediacy of the threat revealed by the Paris attacks, Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Isil in Syria. He should not place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons, and he does not need to place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons. He is the prime minister, and as a result, the ultimate authority to deploy Britain’s Armed Forces and security services rests with him, and him alone. He claims he has identified a clear and present danger to our nation’s security, so he a has duty to act on it. He cannot allow the House of Commons to second guess him. He certainly cannot allow the current leader of the opposition to second guess him.
Inevitably, such a decision by the prime minister would provoke a political backlash. Fine. He should confront it. He should challenge the Labour Party to table a motion opposing his actions. He should also challenge the rebels on his own side of the House to vote against their own government on the issue. And he should explain to them this. "If you defeat me I will immediately table a motion of confidence in this administration. I will link it directly to action against Isil in Syria. If you, as a Conservative MP, wish to bring down your own government over an issue of national security, that is your choice."
Then he should address Labour MPs. And he should say this. "If you wish to vote against this confidence motion, you go right ahead. If you defeat that motion, I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves, their families and their communities from the threat of terror. Your candidate in that election – the candidate you will have to endorse on the doorsteps, and argue should replace me in Downing Street – will be Jeremy Corbyn."
The Prime Minister is right when he says the failure of the House of Commons to endorse his stance on Syria would be damaging for Britain’s reputation abroad. But we currently have a situation where David Cameron is saying he wishes to act on a matter of urgent national security, but cannot, because he has insufficient parliamentary authority. That is of itself deeply damaging to our international reputation. It is also a morally abhorrent position to hold, given we are effectively asking our closest allies to risk the lives of their serviceman to keep our streets safe, when we will not.
And it sends another signal. For all the talk of our resolution and reach, the terrorists are now presented with the spectacle of a British prime minister openly admitting he wishes to strike at them, but can’t. We are communicating impotence and irresolution at a time when we should be communicating determination and strength.
David Cameron says we need to launch air-strikes on Isil in Syria to keep this country safe. And if he allows Jeremy Corbyn to exercise a veto over that policy, then it raises this question – if David Cameron won’t stand up to Jeremy Corbyn, who will he stand up to?