Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's newspapers.

1. Intervention in Syria will escalate, not stop the killing (Guardian)

Russia and China blocked a bid to force regime change. But, says Seumas Milne, a negotiated settlement is the only way out of civil war.

2. How do we help get rid of President Bashar al-Assad? (Daily Telegraph)

Alex Spillius explains that unlike the former rebels in Libya, those in Syria are fragmented and don't control even a corner of the country.

3. Putin's fears are not for Assad but for himself (Times) (£)

Tony Brenton says that Russia's support for Syria is a diplomatic error forced by the rising tide of protest at home.

4. Don't let vested interests skew the NHS debate (Independent)

Doctors can, of course, have fair concerns; but they must be understood in context, says this leading article.

5. Deport Abu Qatada: or if not, give him the law's full protection (Guardian)

Qatada champions al-Qaida and delights in terrorist outrages. But Britain is robust enough to tolerate madcap clerics, says Simon Jenkins.

6. There's only half an answer to high pay: growth (Times) (£)

Nobody shouted about bonuses during the boom, says Daniel Finkelstein. Don't scare off private business and risk delaying recovery.

7. Crisis must not change India's course (Financial Times)

Eurozone and oil-price threats should not be exaggerated, warns Martin Wolf.

8. Why India needs aid (Guardian)

Most of its population are still poor. The row over British aid shows how many people confuse rapid growth with wealth, says Praful Bidwai.

9. Greece is being screwed down so Sarkozy can meet his deadline (Independent)

The motive and timing of Angela Merkel's support for the French president are interesting, says Hamish McRae.

10. The US feels sunny again while Britain shivers (Times) (£)

The two are conducting a controlled economic experiment, says Anatole Kaletsky. Now we can see the results.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

David Cameron seeks a "clear majority" for air strikes in Syria as Jeremy Corbyn signals his opposition

The Labour leader warns military action will increase the threat to the UK. The PM argues it will reduce it. 

There is a Commons majority for air strikes against Isis in Syria - but Jeremy Corbyn will not be part of it. That was clear from David Cameron's statement on the need for military action and Corbyn's response. Cameron's most significant argument for intervention was that the threat to the UK from terrorism would only increase if it failed to act. The intelligence services, he said, had warned that Britain was already in the "top tier" of countries targeted by Isis. It was inaction, rather than action, that was the greatest risk.

Corbyn's response, consisting of seven questions, signalled that he does not share this view. Citing Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, he quoted Barack Obama on the danger of "unintended consequences". His question on the risk of terrorist attacks in the UK and of civilian deaths in Syria showed that he believes both will be increased by UK air strikes. Yet a significant number of Labour MPs and shadow cabinet members share Cameron's view. Corbyn must now resolve by Monday whether to offer his party a free vote on the issue or whether to whip it against intervention (at the likely cost of frontbench resignations). The third option: Corbyn voting for air strikes seems unthinkable. 

Cameron, who was responding to the recent foreign affairs select commitee report opposing action, had made a multipronged case for intervention. He argued that the UK could make a unique military contribution through its Brimstone precision missiles (more accurate than those of any country), that there was a moral and strategic imperative for Britain to support its allies, the US and France; that a political process was underway (but action was needed before it concluded); that the threat from Isis would grow in the absence of intervention; that the UN resolution passed last week provided legal authorisation (along with the right to self-defence); that 70,000 Syrian opposition forces and Kurdish troops could fight Isis on the ground; that the government would contribute at least £1bn to post-conflict resolution; and that the west would not dismantle the Syrian state or its institutions (learning from the error of de-Ba'athification).

In response to Corbyn, Cameron later ruled out the use of UK ground troops. He maintained that "Assad must go" but argued for what he called an "Isil first" strategy. "We have to hit these terrorists in their heartlands now," he concluded.

The political test set by Cameron was to achieve a "clear majority" for military action. He warned that anything less would be a "publicity coup" for Isis. There are increasing signs that Cameron is close to meeting his aim. In response to his statement, Conservative MPs, including Crispin Blunt, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee (who previously opposed air strikes), Ken Clarke and Sarah Wollaston, announced that they would be voting for intervention. But, as Cameron all but conceded, Corbyn will not be. The question facing the Labour leader is how he handles those in his party who intend to do so. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.