Bloody hell. I’ve gone all Jeremy Corbyn over the government’s proposal to bomb ISIS targets in Syria. I’ve not been convinced by the PM’s case. What should I do? Well, it scarcely matters what I do, or say for that matter, but I was rather hoping to have made up my mind with a large degree of clarity and certainty by now and I haven’t. David Cameron was, as ever, smooth and confident and at first I thought he might really provide a compelling case, but he never did.
Jeremy Corbyn’s leaden-tongued, bumbling response, plainly prepared in advance, did nothing to dissuade me either. I am finding it difficult, if not impossible, to take him seriously nowadays. He asked a series of unrelated questions in a drab monotone and then sat down again, presumably composing the letter he would be writing to his MPs later that evening, although he forgot to tell the shadow cabinet beforehand, to say that he would and could not support military action because, well, he never does because he is a pacifist.
But this should be about Cameron and I think he failed in his efforts in all manner of areas. Let me explain:
He said it would be legal to attack ISIS, but would not publish the legal evidence, just like Tony Blair didn’t in 2003. The convention is that legal advice is not published, but why?
He said, clearly, that there would be no British boots on the ground, referring to some 70,000 Syrian troops being already there. But he didn’t, or couldn’t, say who they were.
Civilian casualties would be at a minimum since our bombs are extremely clever and only kill the bad guys.
There was more, but it was all equally woolly and vague. It was not, as I said, compelling. And I come from a place where I lean towards to blasting ISIS off the face of the earth. I am not sure how this will be carried out, but more worryingly neither does Cameron.
I do not pretend to be an expert on these things – far from it – but I can’t get my head round Jeremy Corbyn’s “do nothing and hope for the best” non strategy either. The old pacifist looked bewildered and confused as the debate went on, as bewildered and confused as I was. Perhaps convention dictates that the leader of the opposition does not intervene in such debates, but why not? I thought this was supposed to be a new era in politics and quite clearly it isn’t. The old boy seems to have principles but yesterday it was the principle of keeping your gob shut. If Cameron’s leadership was unconvincing, Corbyn’s was non-existent.
The old saying in football is “if in doubt, kick it out” because you cannot concede a goal when the ball is sitting in Row Z. I am currently leaning that way, but somehow it doesn’t feel right to do nothing.
It’s a question of leadership, too. For all his smooth presentational skills, Cameron remains an ex TV executive and Corbyn a lifelong backbencher who has never before shown any inclination to lead and is not showing the ability to lead, either.
I’ll wait for the parliamentary debate next week and take it from there. I am hoping that someone, somewhere will show genuine leadership and provide us with compelling evidence, one way or another. I am going to get a very sore bum sitting on the fence but to date I have not been persuaded to jump off it.
