The three MPs who cover Caerphilly County Borough are split on their decisions to vote on air strikes in Syria.
Caerphilly MP Wayne David has confirmed he will be voting with the UK Government in favour of bombing Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria while Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney MP Gerald Jones has said he will vote against military action. Islwyn MP Chris Evans is undecided on the issue.
Labour MP Mr David will be going against Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s own position in the vote, which is due to take place later today, and said he “will not flinch from doing the right thing”.
Mr David explained: “ISIL/Da’esh is an extreme, barbaric sect which is committed to the destruction of everything we hold dear. Targeted, precision air strikes are necessary to degrade the ability of ISIL/Da’esh to organise and inspire terrorist acts in this country and elsewhere. I believe that action is required to defend the people of our country.
“It is also important that Britain does everything possible to bring about a ceasefire between President Assad’s regime and the democratic opposition. At the same time, local opposition forces need to be supported and supplies to ISIL/Da’esh need to be cut off.”
Members of Parliament will decide whether the the UK should join America, France, Russia and others in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria.
Prime Minister David Cameron has claimed IS is a real threat to Britain’s national security and the UK Government has put forward a motion in favour of air strike for MPs to debate and vote on.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has given Labour MPs a free vote on the issue, although he himself is against the bombing.
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney MP Gerald Jones said he will not be voting in favour of the motion.
Mr Jones said the decision is the hardest one he has had since being elected in May and told Caerphilly Observer that he had received hundreds of emails from constituents stating their opposition to air strikes.
He said: “There are too many doubts and questions in my mind. I think a bombing campaign is not appropriate at this time and there are other options that should be taken forward.
“The UN are on board, but I think it is about going and working with other countries in the region.
“There needs to be a comprehensive strategy on how we deal with this issue and I don’t think bombing is going to improve matters and there is a risk it will make matters worse.”
A spokesman for Islwyn MP Chris Evans said the Labour and Co-operative member was still undecided and will be hearing the arguments made in today’s debate.
The debate is due to begin at 11.30am with a vote expected at around 10pm.
Watch the debate
Terrible decision from Wayne David. No consultation with constituents despite numerous requests made directly to him and via social media. Emails sent have been largely ignored or met with a generic response. Caerphilly will remember this Wayne!
No Caerphilly won’t remember it as 99% of the voting public remember absolutely zero when it comes to polling day. As a Tory supporter – well done Wayne David, what shall we do sit back and wait for an attack on one of our major cities before we do anything, I’m sure there are plenty of Jihadist loonies living among us in Cardiff just waiting for the signal .Who knows what murderous atrocities they are plotting against the very country that has welcomed them in, housed them, fed them and educated them. These murderers need to be wiped off the face of the earth and the UK should join it’s allies in doing just that.
Thank you for sharing your small minded views. You’re a credit to the party that you claim to support.
You’re welcome – and yes they’re just MY views just the same as you have YOUR views, though I don’t attack you for the views that you have. If we all had the same views the world we be a very boring place – but maybe there wouldn’t be any lunatic death cult extremists running around murdering innocent people all in the name of Allah.
I’m sure you and Wayne can discuss your shared interests over a cup of tea together. In the meantime I’ll make the most of living in a multicultural society.
We are more likely to be attacked by IS following air strikes. You should note that the 7/7 bombings were a direct consequence of similar failed policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan which we committed to in the shared interest of helping our allies.
You are aware ISIL are committed to destroying Britain regardless of Britain’s involvement in the Middle East. ISIL want to destroy the West. ISIL want to destroy anyone who does not subscribe to their views. We are not talking about an organisation that can be negotiated with, indeed, if ISIL could be negotiated with they would have used the hostages in a Parisian theatre for leverage, instead they systematically killed them.
ISIL have been systematically killing anyone who does not fit their views. If you are gay, you are thrown from a roof. If you are Christian, you are slaughtered. If you are Western, you are beheaded on video. If you are Jordanian you are burnt alive. If you have been raped, you are crushed alive by a tank. I hate to bring up the Nazis, but ISIL are modern Nazis looking to exterminate people they do not like. Britain will not be safe by not bombing.
Bombing alone will not beat ISIL, but not bombing will help us lose.
I am well aware of their intentions, however the military solution tabled is flawed. Airstrikes are not a solution and will simply drive people into the arms of the so-called Islamic state.
In the past we said that we would not negotiate with the Taliban, Al-quaeda and the IRA. We have negotiated with all three so while it might be the government line that we do not negotiate with terrorists in the end we do always.
Britain is bombing them already in Iraq.
All it will mean is that more refugees and migrants will be forced or encouraged into walking into Northern Europe for a better life.
Air Strikes it is then – well done Mr David and his fellow Labour MPs who defied the useless sack of hot air that is the Labour leader. The U.K is likely to be attacked by IS lunatics regardless of whether we drop bombs on them or not, but at least now when UK citizens are gunned down or blown up in London, Manchester, Leeds or perhaps even Cardiff you’ll be able to say ‘I told you so’.
I thought that your rationale was that these killing air strikes were going to eliniminate the murderous cretins from attacks in the UK. I see you are covering all the likely bases, you say, ” The U.K is likely to be attacked by IS lunatics regardless of whether we
drop bombs on them or not, but at least now when UK citizens are gunned
down or blown up in London, Manchester, Leeds or perhaps even Cardiff ” WHAT?. You seem to now accept that these air strikes have nothing to do with eliminting threats on our soil, but more to do with revenge, if that is your position please say so. But of course it seems you can live with the deaths of innocent women and children when these murdering fanatics retreat to the suburbs of towns and cities to hide behind people who want nothing more than to get on with their lives in their own homes, and, to escape coalition attacks on their current locations, but, neither you nor me or anyone else for that matter know what will play out in the coming months.
Very well put Trefor.
If the UK do not bomb Syria and there is an attack on UK soil then it will be because the UK did nothing, and if there is an attack on UK soil after the UK have now bombed Syria then yourself, Mr Morgan and all the many who agree with you will be able to say that it is a direct result of the UK bombing Syria and your argument was correct all along. What I believe counts for nothing anyway.
The thing the anti-war lot do not understand is how the situations could be different.
During the first Gulf War 1 Saddam Hussein would have become the owner and occupier of Kuwait (a UN member state). Slobodan Milosevic would have made Bosnia part of a greater Serbia, and Kosovo would have been ethnically cleansed. If there was no invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban would still be in power, with Al Qaeda as their guests. Saddam Hussein with his criminal family would still be terrorising Iraq. In Lobya Gaddaffi would have gone on to Kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. In Iraq ISIL would have been able to take over large swathes of Iraq and Syria, ethnically cleansing minorities from all religions, and having the opportunity and resources to commit even more acts of barbarism. Military intervention is never perfect, and many mistakes have been made, however, the above would be happening if the anti-war people controlled foreign policy.
The anti-war lot believe everyone is happy, everyone can get along, and doing nothing will bring peace. Hello! It will not! ISIL vs the West is a game of who can kill who the first. That is the only way to survive. Bombing Syria is a way of pre-emptive defence. Will innocent people die? Yes, some will. But I believe it is preferable to have innocent people die in Syria than the UK.
You support Blairs Labour party Iraq war then?
And, Putins actions if it comes to that. Waring for the same reasons, in his mind, which you highlight?
Iraq would have been a good war if it was done properly. Invasions must be followed by colonisation. Knocking out a government so you can install a puppet government does not work. All government institutions must be controlled with all people not agreeing imprisoned. I am sure you agree such a strategy worked well in NZ, Australia, Canada, and the USA.
But western interference has not brought peace and stability to this region yet and there doesn’t seem to be any likelihood it will.
Libya being a good example, before our efforts the country had some stability but now it’s a complete mess. I was working on a rental property in Cardiff Just after we bombed Libya and the landlord also worked in the oil industry. He told me he had very little warning to get out of Libya and was now unable to go back as there was no order or structure. He was concentrating on his rental properties and couldn’t see himself going back anytime soon. Mainly because he knew all the local factions would come out of the woodwork and start causing even more strife. It’s just not working.
All public opinion on whatever side of the argument counts including mine and your although we are clear on opposing sides in this debate.
And how exactly will blowing suburbs of Syrian Towns and cities off the face of the earth prevent `local` fanatics and cretinous extreemists in the UK, (loonies in your words, and we agree on that), from following through their murderous deeds?
Please explain!!!!..
The decision to support the Conservative motion for air strikes is a grave error of judgment. The death of thousands of innocent men women and children behind whom the radical terrorists hide will be firmly in the firing line of British missiles, and, once ` bombed` it will do nothing to prevent radical suicide cells already in place throughout the world from wrecking death and desruction including in the UK.
The support offered today to the Conservatives, by Labour elected members, in opposition to the Labour Party Leadership will lead to a complete personal loss of credibility. This is in addition to that support turning suburbs of Syrian cities into the 21st Century modern `British Killing Fields`, the quote of `Blood on their hands` is never more true.. I would AGAIN, because I have already done so in a private message, plead with Wayne David to think again, think of your christian moral compass, the disregard for innocent lives lost as a `DIRECT` result of your actions in supporting this warmongering motion, and, think of the actual broken bodies of the people, particulalry innocent children your actions will inevitably bring about.
THINK AGAIN, and ensure you can sleep at night when we all see the newsreels of the blown to bits bodies of people who have nothing to do with radical terrorists but who simply want to get on with their lives, taking care of their Children..
IS `State` What state????????
Gerald Jones remains the reasonable and reflective man he has always been, good decision Gerald. lets hope Chris Evans will also reflect on the death and destruction his decision, whatever it is, will cause.
When a country’s armed forces are ordered to do something it is incumbent upon the politicians to give them clear rules of engagement and an objective. If British politicians issue orders to extend their bombing campaign to targets in Syria as well as Iraq we should be absolutely clear in our objective. Unless the government has a secret plan I do not know exactly what the intended outcome of broadening British involvement is supposed to achieve.
In 1982 Margaret Thatcher’s government, along with most of the opposition MPs, tasked the armed forces with ejecting a foreign invader from South Georgia and the Falkland islands. Our forces did this with aplomb and this led directly to the fall of an unpleasant, brutal dictatorship in Argentina.
All too often nowadays the armed forces are tasked with meaningless missions by politicians that have given no thought to what they intend to achieve and what happens to the bombed country afterward. This has led to turmoil in Iraq and Libya and has led directly to massive movements of people from Africa and the Middle East into Europe. This, in turn, has led to an increased danger of attacks by terror organisations on European countries.
Politicians need to learn from mistakes and campaign for solutions to this civil war before using force. As far as I can see if the bombing is extended without such condideration then Britain will merely become just one more country drpping bombs on Syrian towns and villages. Let us not forget that David Cameron, in September 2013, wanted to bomb the forces of President Assad who were, and still are, fighting IS. This situation is surreal and will end only one way; badly.
Agree, but I support dropping bombs. Bombing alone will not defeat ISIL, but not bombing will lose. I hope Cameron is clear in what he is authorising. The RAF should destroy all ISIL-controlled oil plants, all oil vehicles in the country, all training camps, and all other targets identified by intelligence. I would also support extending the bombing missions into countries supporting ISIS. If Middle Eastern countries are supporting ISIL we should attack them too with economic sanctions at least.
I see two ways to sort out the Lament:
1. Deploy 500,000 troops to forcefully colonise the place. Impose a secular constitutions on the people, and take control of all government institutions. Essentially, the Western world – Russia can help – need to colonise Iraq and Syria in the same way Australia was colonised. When people rise up in protest, like ISIL and supporters will, kill them or imprison them.
2. Flatter the area and start again. Of course, this is politically unacceptable and raises very big moralistic question. We have all heard the debate on Dresden during WWII.
As I see it the major player in destabilising the region is Saudi Arabia, a country which incidentally does not take in any refugees. Are we likely to impose economic sanctions on Saudi? I think not, we will continue with the bombing of villages made of mud bricks because our politicians have no grasp whatsoever of the politics of Iraq and Syria and continue to lurch from one crisis to another.
For all her faults, and I can think of many, I think Margaret Thatcher would have taken care to avoid British military deployment until we had agreed with other nations a coherent plan to bring peace to the region. This plan would have to take into account Assad, Iran, the Kurds and Russia.
Here’s a prediction, if parliament vote to bomb Syria as well as Iraq sooner or later British troops will be involved in this civil war. This will end the same way as the debacle in Afghanistan where our politicians displayed the same ignorance of exactly what is happening during a multi faction civil war.
I don’t think thats a predication Richard, it seems inevitable to me that troops will have to and once again we will have entered into a conflict without any reasonable military strategy or endgame insight. Agree with everything you said, well except the Thatcher comment. Really not sure how she would have played this out.
Nobody does know how Thatcher would have handled it as she is dead, but I do not think she would have made the same mess of foreign policy as Blair and Cameron. Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan likewise would have
displayed a better understanding of when not to use military force and they had the advantage of being in control of far greater military capability than we possess now.
Correct Rich- she is dead!!!”!
Britain will be using 8 old aeroplanes … Our contribution is nothing more than an expensive gesture.
The millions a day involved could, and should be spent better, on saving lives in this country, and not killing lives abroad.
The Tory Blairites have once again ignored their constituents. Wayne David will not get my vote ever again.
It’s actually eight additional aircraft taking the total up to around 24 but likely more the mid teens. In addition there is the complex surveillance aircraft and refuelling aircraft. Still not good enough if you ask me, but then the whole military is in a terrible condition at the moment.
Really? I am surprised he got your vote this time after voting for Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet you will still vote for him.
From information I have read – there are 6 Tornadoes in Cyprus at moment. With 2 extra ones promised.
Each aircraft is estimated to cost 1 million per bombing run, and the Syria mission is estimated to last for years as Cameron’s cronies are saying.
No money for education/health/welfare, but an unlimited budget to drop bombs.
Eight Tornado aircraft with an additional two being deployed, six Typhoon aircraft, ten drones, two Sentinel planes, one Rivet Joint, and at least one Voyager. That is quite a sizeable force considering the dilapidated state of our military at the moment.
I would say the most expensive bomb being used is the Brimstone at £100,000 per piece. Operating costs of £1m per hour seems a bit unlikely. That probably includes the cost of maintenance. I would also highlight these aircraft would still be flying training missions so the only extra costs are the bombs and accommodation for the crews abroad.
Why is it the money must be spent. Money is the Treasury Reserve will just sit there, and if it was not there it would be used in austerity. I also do not see your rationale behind not doing anything.
ISIL want to attack Britain anyway (seven plots being foiled in the last month prove that), so bombing can only reduce ISIL strength by cutting finance methods, making us safer. There will undoubtedly be some civilian causalities but is it better to have innocent Britons die in a terrorist attack or innocent Syrians die? As horrible as it is, this is a case of trading in British lives for Syrian lives – Syrian lives which will likely be lost anyway due to ISIL.
I would be open to being against air strikes if the anti-war people could provide a good reason for being against them.
Sky news have a breakdown of the cost. Of course it’s an estimate. But they reached the £1 million cost based on 4-6hour missions of two Tornadoes, plus bomb payload of basic Paveway and Brimstone bombs. If they use the fancier Storm Shadow bombs, then they cost £800,000 a pop!
But answer me this. Daesh station their troops in the houses of ordinary civilians trapped in the cities/towns they occupy. How does dropping bombs on them help the trapped civilians? Or distinguish between terrorist or civilian??
Cameron said the RAF were needed because they use Brimstone bombs … the same bombs Saudi Arabia have been dropping on Daesh.
And the first UK strikes were using Paveway bombs … at an oil field!!
The terrorists that will attack us are not the ones sat in Syria. They will be the ones in the UK sat behind their computers at this moment.
“The terrorists that will attack us are not the ones sat in Syria. They
will be the ones in the UK sat behind their computers at this moment.”
That is correct, I cannot understand the lemming like compulsion to bomb destitute towns and villages occupied by the old and children who are through no fault of their own are alongside IS barbarians. Why not spend the money on detecting and tackling the terrorists who are in our country?
For the ‘Gung Ho’ types benefit I am not a pacifist and would like to see our defence spending doubled. I just want that money spent on defending Britain, not used to just become an addition to the many countries that are pointlessly bombing meaningless targets.
If the government have suddenly decided to spend some of our money I would prefer the Royal Navy to have the five new warships which were cancelled last week.
The government say they are protecting UK citizens by bombing Syria.
Personally I think the money could be better spent protecting UK citizens by spending the money on health/education/welfare provisions. That’s where UK citizens face greater risk from.
Next spring the refugee/migrant ‘swarm’ will be even greater. The Daesh loons may just decide then that Syria is too flat, and move with the ‘swarm’ into Northern Europe.
I fear that IS is already here Anthony. As for spending defence money on the items you suggest the government in Cardiff and London tell us that the National Health Service is the envy of the world, our school children are the best educated, hardest working generation there has ever been and welfare is too generous making immigration essential to fill the jobs the British will not take.
I do not agree with any of that rubbish, of course, but I can see that the defence budget has been cut dangerously. Bombing Syrian villages is a pretty stupid idea when your defences are as under funded as ours, but politicians do stupid things.
Agree. ISIL are hear – blame Labour and the Conservatives for that. Neither party has implemented strict border controls and integration programmes. Multiculturalism has failed.
Correct on all these points, as far as I am concerned.
“The terrorists that will attack us are not the ones sat in Syria. They will be the ones in the UK sat behind their computers at this moment.”
Too simplistic to be correct. ISIL are also in the refugees coming from Europe. Homegrown terrorists are trained in Syria.
Bombing Syria will undoubtedly kill some civilians but if it means destroying oil fields ISIL uses for its funding, and destroying ISIL training camps it is a compromise I find acceptable.
The cold, hard truth is bombing ISIL is sacrificing Syrian civilians for British civilians. In an ideal world no one would die but Britain must put the lives of Britons before the lives of Syrians.
I was talking to Ismael, a Moslem friend, last week (Cardiff born, Somali father) who expressed amazement that the West is increasing the aerial bombardment and is expecting this to lead to an army of 70,000 of ‘friendly’ or ‘moderate’ moslems to fight the ground war for them.
His view is that we don’t have any friends on this particular battlefield, we are gettting involved in a tribal war. He went on to say that we are doing nothing to deter Saudi Arabia from fomenting discontent in the area and until we do there will be no peace.
All in all I think he has a point, he is a man who speaks Arabic and has worked both in Africa and the Middle East. As Pete says this conflict is beyond Western comprehension and MPs should listen to people like Ismael before comitting our forces to battle at the bidding of the USA and France.
Split two to one AGAINST BOMBING