I';ve just checked it again and the commons vote for Iraq 2003 was 412 to 149. Pretty decisive.
Take 150 (?) tories from one side to the other and it looks a lot closer, however.
Could labour have carried on if Blair had been defeated until 2005 having utterly funked their biggest challenge in 2003, even with a huge majority? I'm not sure.
In effect, all that IDS achieved was to prolong the complete illusion that his enemies were a responsible party of government.
Labour could have carried on. It was Blair's war and the blame would have been pinned squarely on him. Possibly a few other Blairite Ultras would have fallen too but by and large, Brown could have easily formed a government and put it to a vote of confidence if necessary.
If 100+ Tory MPs had voted No rather than Yes, led by their leadership, it's quite possible that a few other Labour MPs might have jumped ship too if they thought that their vote might make a difference.
"Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 5h A friend in Ankara tells me something fascinating: apparently, many Turks signal their party affiliation by how they trim their moustaches."
and gives advice on how Miliband's dithering can be played to advantage in the negotiations at the UN.
No disrespect intended to Britain or Ed Miliband, but I think you may be over-estimating their importance in this...
Whose importance?
Britain? The current motion before the UNSC has been drafted and is being proposed by the UK. It is the UK's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who will be leading the council back room discussions on the international community's response to the Syrian crisis. This is about as important a role as Britain is ever likely to have in deliberations of a international intervention in another sovereign state,
Miliband? The international community and the world's press will be reporting on the degree to which the UK parliament is united or divided on the issue of intervention in Syria. The signals that Miliband is sending are ambiguous: he is neither for nor against in principle but seems to be occupying his time in frustrating process and leveraging the crisis for domestic partisan political gain. He will not be the first opposition leader to play such games in similar circumstances, but he should note that international observers tend not to understand or have sympathy with the subordination of international interests to domestic politics. They look just at how united a particular country is behind its government's international position. Miliband's dithering will not be decisive in this affair but it will signal unnecessary weakness to nations who share Miliband's willingness to delay and frustrate resolution of the crisis.
I was doing the washing-up and just realised what a site like this would have been like on July 29th 1914, the day after Austria declared war on Serbia. I wonder if a majority would have supported going to war then - by August 4th, sentiment had changed completely.
I don't think anyone is now saying "let's not wait for the UN". I'm also sure most would support a resolution calling on all sides in Syria to hand over any chemical weapons for destruction by the UN and perhaps a renewed diplomatic and humanitarian effort.
As some have argued on here, the use of chemical weapons is the tip of the iceberg of violence and destruction and ending the fighting (as well as alleviating the suffering) should be more of a priority than the destruction of chemical munitions.
It's one of those great what ifs? Thank God I wasn't around in the Summer of 1914.
I think UKIP are wrong to be against action in all circumstances.
I disagree. In so far as 'all circumstances' mean every reasonably foreseeable circumstance based on current position. Of course if it became possible that Syria might directly threaten ourselves or other neighbouring countries (and I include Turkey and Jordan as well as Israel in that) then that is a different matter.
But as it stands, even if it were proved that Assad was behind the chemical attacks (and the evidence presented so far by Cameron in his JIC releases are so flimsy as to be worthless), even then I think UKIP would be right to oppose action.
The question is not just whether someone needs punishing but also, more importantly, whether any action we take short of full scale invasion could actually make anything better within Syria. To me this seems to be clearly impossible. The success in the initial stages of Iraq and Libya came about because the air power could be effectively directed against enemy air power and armour. These elements are not significant in the current civil war in Syria where the biggest military asset the Syrian Government has going for it is the support of Hezbollah who are able to supply large numbers of well trained committed veterans for an extensive ground campaign.
Without clear front lines and with no major targets that will have a significant military impact, the idea that we can do anything to really effect the ground war from 20,000 feet is simply ludicrous. No matter how just the cause might be to some (and it certainly isn't to me) all we will do is make matters worse and give the Middle East yet another reason to hate us.
What we know for sure is that a UN resolution calling for military action against Syria will be vetoed by Russia and Salmond's Chinese allies.
Leaving aside your doddering old fogeyesque smearing, you might care to look at the New York times Editorial which states quite correctly that the Security Council should be the first venue for dealing with this matter since chemical weapons use is a war crime and banned under international treaties and that condemning Assad, impose a ban on arms shipments to Syria (including materials used to make chemical weapons, which the regime is trying to buy on the open market) and sending Mr. Assad’s name to the International Criminal Court for prosecution would be the wisest and most effective choice if proof it was he and not the rebels is forthcoming.
What would Salmond wish us to do then - Something or nothing? Difficult decisions are at times the very business of government. Salmond made his choice with the Chinese. Cameron and the Coalition will make theirs with Syria.
Blair would be proud of you Jack. Something or nothing?? The only two options in your mind is a barrage of cruise missiles or the fake outrage and condemnation of those who don't support that? Oh deary me. You're either with us or against us says Jack Blair, is that it? LOL
I support letting the weapons inspectors doing their job, reporting back to the UN and instigating procedures for the International Criminal Court to prosecute those responsible for war crimes. Not just Assad's war crimes but the rebels too.
If you're still hopelessly confused and can't remember why that is the correct course of action (as opposed to supporting one faction in this intractable civil war by raining down cruise missiles on Syria) then get this through your delightful old skull.
When the going gets tough. Once again, with his back against the wall Cameron delivers. If he could keep the focus all the time I think he could be truly great. He risks falling short of that because he seems to have a short attention span.
I think UKIP are wrong to be against action in all circumstances.
I disagree. In so far as 'all circumstances' mean every reasonably foreseeable circumstance based on current position. Of course if it became possible that Syria might directly threaten ourselves or other neighbouring countries (and I include Turkey and Jordan as well as Israel in that) then that is a different matter.
But as it stands, even if it were proved that Assad was behind the chemical attacks (and the evidence presented so far by Cameron in his JIC releases are so flimsy as to be worthless), even then I think UKIP would be right to oppose action.
The question is not just whether someone needs punishing but also, more importantly, whether any action we take short of full scale invasion could actually make anything better within Syria. To me this seems to be clearly impossible. The success in the initial stages of Iraq and Libya came about because the air power could be effectively directed against enemy air power and armour. These elements are not significant in the current civil war in Syria where the biggest military asset the Syrian Government has going for it is the support of Hezbollah who are able to supply large numbers of well trained committed veterans for an extensive ground campaign.
Without clear front lines and with no major targets that will have a significant military impact, the idea that we can do anything to really effect the ground war from 20,000 feet is simply ludicrous. No matter how just the cause might be to some (and it certainly isn't to me) all we will do is make matters worse and give the Middle East yet another reason to hate us.
Indeed.
Compare with the interventionist position of:
Something must be done Bombing is something Bombing must be done
Sounds to me as if they therefore are voting against Government motion.
So back to where we were yesterday - looks to me like a Government defeat is very likely because there will be enough Con rebels who dislike / want to bring down Cameron over gay marriage etc + LD rebels who will want to vote against on principle.
I'm sure Assad will be quaking at the prospect of the ICC at the Hague.
You have still failed to answer the fundamental question the government HAS to answer. When Russia and China veto the resolution what is to be done about Assad's continued use of chemical weapons - Something or nothing ?
I have not seen the texts. What is the difference between the substantive motion and the amendment? What is Ed Miliband's distinction? Oh he has just been asked. He will develop it in his remarks apparently.
Sounds to me as if they therefore are voting against Government motion.
So back to where we were yesterday - looks to me like a Government defeat is very likely because there will be enough Con rebels who dislike / want to bring down Cameron over gay marriage etc + LD rebels who will want to vote against on principle.
That's right - I think there are a core who are simply out to get Cameron.
And today gives them a great chance - because there should be a good number of LD rebels (anti any war on principle) which means that not that many Con rebels will be needed.
I'm sure Assad will be quaking at the prospect of the ICC at the Hague.
As much as the rebels and AL-Quaeda factions - who have openly stated they will use chemical weapons too - will be quaking at the prospect that any use of chemical weapons will result in an attack on Assad?
You still can't quite see the problem with that yet can you Jack? Give your old grey matter a bit of time and you might begin to see the utter folly of rewarding one side in this civil war with a couple of hundred cruise missiles when they are actively trying to overthrow Assad and seem to have not the slightest problem with using chemical weapons to achieve their aims either.
You have still failed to answer the fundamental question the government HAS to answer. When Russia and China veto the resolution what is to be done about Assad's continued use of chemical weapons - Something or nothing ?
I have answered it and the shrieking repetition of your preposterously simplistic Blairite stupidity is more than sufficient to indicate you are incapable of grasping the complexities of the issue at hand. Find your little tin hat and get cheerleading for the missiles to rain down Jack since that seems to be the limit of your contributions and understanding.
BBC Tom Watson: Senior conservatives saying to me that chief whip misread the mood of the party on Syria
Wouldn't be surprised. Was with a bunch of fairly Tory types last night and it was a clear 4-1 against getting involved. Which is my view too, on this occasion, as it was with the second Iraq war.
In the present case I don't quite get the nuance of "we'll stand back for two years whilst you shoot thousands but gas is different". I fail to see our strategic interest, we cannot fight the whole world just because they don't subscribe to our view of civil society, and whatever happens it seems highly likely that some factional strongman of one kind or another will eventually emerge, and he won't resemble a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat in the slightest no matter what we do.
So don't bother. Save our powder for when it really matters to us.
Not sure that Cameron would have to go if he lost the vote today. For a start, it wouldn't (either way) authorise military action. Secondly, he doesn't have a majority so it wouldn't be as significant as if he did. Thirdly, Ed Miliband is an opportunistic little shit.
Yes,he's beginning to look ridiculous as pointed out by Rifkind.
I don't think it's partisan to point out that he's not having his best day.
What I don't understand is that it really didn't need to be like this. He could have achieved the moral high ground, brought the parties together and earned the respect of the public.
He wants a vote on his amendment but no one is quite sure what it is.
Mr. Pork, it's no great skill to use a catch-all term for people you disagree with and be vaguely sarcastic. Why don't you offer us your impartial and expert assessment of Cameron's performance, and compare and contrast it with Miliband's, and those of other significant contributors?
That's right - I think there are a core who are simply out to get Cameron.
And today gives them a great chance - because there should be a good number of LD rebels (anti any war on principle) which means that not that many Con rebels will be needed.
Dan Byles, Conservative MP: "Military intervention is only a responsible course of action if it can succeed in achieving a clearly defined set of goals. Otherwise its only purpose is to massage our collective conscience. And that’s not good enough."
Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP: "...in common with several other politicians, I've been lobbied by FCO types in support of an intervention in Syria since long before the gas attack. Their justification has changed, but their goal hasn't.
I simply don't believe that the government's actual motive for wanting to intervene is the same as its stated motive. And that, as we learned in Suez and in the second Iraq war, is a poor basis on which to proceed."
It will be interesting to see who has rebelled against Cameron. I'm not in favour of opening The Syrian Pandora's box. The why now question after 14 other uses of CW in 2 years doesn't appear to be answered.
Mr. Pork, it's no great skill to use a catch-all term for people you disagree with and be vaguely sarcastic. Why don't you offer us your impartial and expert assessment of Cameron's performance, and compare and contrast it with Miliband's, and those of other significant contributors?
Not much point since the well was poisoned by the backing down and changing positions previous to it. If you were looking for a great debate between the two you weren't going to get it today after the somewhat shambolic and partisan build up.
Aside from a few very limited and short interjections on points of clarification nothing and nobody stood out particularly. Both leaders tried to set out their stalls and struggled since this is a moving target due to the amendment and due to the limited information available.
You add to that the spectre of Blair and the knowledge that there could well be missile strikes regardless of the UK position and it was never going to be parliament at it's best.
There might be individual contributions from now on that do well but the leaders were uninspiring and fairly predictable. Little Ed and Cammie just aren't that great at these type of debates. Neither is forensic enough and they don't have an ear for the killer line.
However, I really dislike the way it's portrayed as exclusively something men do to women. There is a very large male minority of victims, and of course the abuse can and does happen in homosexual relationships as well. It seems like one of the last bastions of unthinking, blinkered sexism to pretend men couldn't possibly be victims.
GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot If Jack Straw "accepted my responsibility fully" on #Iraq, he would admit that he was party to an illegal war and a crime against peace.
"Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 5h A friend in Ankara tells me something fascinating: apparently, many Turks signal their party affiliation by how they trim their moustaches."
Mr. Herdson, some years ago when I still watched This Week, Portillo (once a Defence Secretary, I think) opined that international law was largely determined by which side was best at bribing little nations to vote their way.
Andrew Sparrow: Miliband Snap Verdict He was calm, measured and tactically astute - he advanced a holding position that could just about accommodate Tony Blair and Diane Abbott - but he sounded a little too much like someone dodging the issue.
It's a holding position that won't hold for very long, though.
PB tories think Cammie is doing great, world recoils in shock. ;^ )
I complimented Ed's new clubbable approach to interviews earlier, but then I heard him on the radio this afternoon at the despatch box and, well, I was struggling to find a reason to stick up for him. He sounded bad. And his argument has just SOLIDIFIED Tory support. That can never be good in the Commons.
I've long suspected that he is a much better political tactician and policy-man than he is leader, and today shows that; he just isn't very strong and commanding at the set-pieces. I bet a lot of Labour MPs will be seriously underwhelmed with him today.
Just my opinion though, and I doubt today's events will have any impact on voting intentions.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m Labour spokesman now making a statement on the level of 'personal insult' directed at Ed Miliband. "This is uncalled for and demeaning"
Awwww. are the nasty tories being mean to poor ickle Miliband?
@SamCoatesTimes: Labour spokesman now making a statement on the level of 'personal insult' directed at Ed Miliband. "This is uncalled for and demeaning"
Stop it, stop it, they're being mean! Can they not see that Ed is swift and decisive in his dithering?
I think UKIP are wrong to be against action in all circumstances.
They are not. Thats why UKIP calls for a strong defence capability, to defend Britain and it's genuine interests; of which the Syrian civil-war is clearly not.
Comments
If 100+ Tory MPs had voted No rather than Yes, led by their leadership, it's quite possible that a few other Labour MPs might have jumped ship too if they thought that their vote might make a difference.
Maybe. The press would have hounded them like Sir Robin's minstrels from Monty Python and the Holy Grail though.
And 2005 would have been a lot, lot closer than it was.
A friend in Ankara tells me something fascinating: apparently, many Turks signal their party affiliation by how they trim their moustaches."
Britain? The current motion before the UNSC has been drafted and is being proposed by the UK. It is the UK's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who will be leading the council back room discussions on the international community's response to the Syrian crisis. This is about as important a role as Britain is ever likely to have in deliberations of a international intervention in another sovereign state,
Miliband? The international community and the world's press will be reporting on the degree to which the UK parliament is united or divided on the issue of intervention in Syria. The signals that Miliband is sending are ambiguous: he is neither for nor against in principle but seems to be occupying his time in frustrating process and leveraging the crisis for domestic partisan political gain. He will not be the first opposition leader to play such games in similar circumstances, but he should note that international observers tend not to understand or have sympathy with the subordination of international interests to domestic politics. They look just at how united a particular country is behind its government's international position. Miliband's dithering will not be decisive in this affair but it will signal unnecessary weakness to nations who share Miliband's willingness to delay and frustrate resolution of the crisis.
BBC Tom Watson: Senior conservatives saying to me that chief whip misread the mood of the party on Syria
Chortles all round.
I disagree. In so far as 'all circumstances' mean every reasonably foreseeable circumstance based on current position. Of course if it became possible that Syria might directly threaten ourselves or other neighbouring countries (and I include Turkey and Jordan as well as Israel in that) then that is a different matter.
But as it stands, even if it were proved that Assad was behind the chemical attacks (and the evidence presented so far by Cameron in his JIC releases are so flimsy as to be worthless), even then I think UKIP would be right to oppose action.
The question is not just whether someone needs punishing but also, more importantly, whether any action we take short of full scale invasion could actually make anything better within Syria. To me this seems to be clearly impossible. The success in the initial stages of Iraq and Libya came about because the air power could be effectively directed against enemy air power and armour. These elements are not significant in the current civil war in Syria where the biggest military asset the Syrian Government has going for it is the support of Hezbollah who are able to supply large numbers of well trained committed veterans for an extensive ground campaign.
Without clear front lines and with no major targets that will have a significant military impact, the idea that we can do anything to really effect the ground war from 20,000 feet is simply ludicrous. No matter how just the cause might be to some (and it certainly isn't to me) all we will do is make matters worse and give the Middle East yet another reason to hate us.
I support letting the weapons inspectors doing their job, reporting back to the UN and instigating procedures for the International Criminal Court to prosecute those responsible for war crimes. Not just Assad's war crimes but the rebels too.
If you're still hopelessly confused and can't remember why that is the correct course of action (as opposed to supporting one faction in this intractable civil war by raining down cruise missiles on Syria) then get this through your delightful old skull.
- Is Labour voting for or against the Government motion?
- Is Labour still tabling its own motion?
Still looks very Prime Ministerial today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive
Compare with the interventionist position of:
Something must be done
Bombing is something
Bombing must be done
Sounds to me as if they therefore are voting against Government motion.
So back to where we were yesterday - looks to me like a Government defeat is very likely because there will be enough Con rebels who dislike / want to bring down Cameron over gay marriage etc + LD rebels who will want to vote against on principle.
Thank you for that withering reply .... NOT.
I'm sure Assad will be quaking at the prospect of the ICC at the Hague.
You have still failed to answer the fundamental question the government HAS to answer. When Russia and China veto the resolution what is to be done about Assad's continued use of chemical weapons - Something or nothing ?
Shows you take him seriously.
Oh he has just been asked.
He will develop it in his remarks apparently.
Looks to me as if there is a realistic chance that Cameron is going to have to resign as PM within the next 24 hours.
Ed Miliband is making it absolutely clear that he hasn't yet made up his mind what to do on Syria
Utterly, utterly pathetic.
He wants the AG conditions. Oh they are clearly met. Ah.
This is not going well.
Surely: Dave 1, EdM 0.
Surely.
Continuing ....
Beyond contemptible.
And today gives them a great chance - because there should be a good number of LD rebels (anti any war on principle) which means that not that many Con rebels will be needed.
You still can't quite see the problem with that yet can you Jack? Give your old grey matter a bit of time and you might begin to see the utter folly of rewarding one side in this civil war with a couple of hundred cruise missiles when they are actively trying to overthrow Assad and seem to have not the slightest problem with using chemical weapons to achieve their aims either.
I have answered it and the shrieking repetition of your preposterously simplistic Blairite stupidity is more than sufficient to indicate you are incapable of grasping the complexities of the issue at hand. Find your little tin hat and get cheerleading for the missiles to rain down Jack since that seems to be the limit of your contributions and understanding.
Pity for him, it's the Tory party he's helping unite behind David Cameron
Ah Gotit!
He's going for the sympathy vote. He is a lost little boy and he wants someone to hug him.
Maybe Ed Balls in his matching tie could step up.
In the present case I don't quite get the nuance of "we'll stand back for two years whilst you shoot thousands but gas is different". I fail to see our strategic interest, we cannot fight the whole world just because they don't subscribe to our view of civil society, and whatever happens it seems highly likely that some factional strongman of one kind or another will eventually emerge, and he won't resemble a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat in the slightest no matter what we do.
So don't bother. Save our powder for when it really matters to us.
'Ed's panicking'
Yes,he's beginning to look ridiculous as pointed out by Rifkind.
Not sure that Cameron would have to go if he lost the vote today. For a start, it wouldn't (either way) authorise military action. Secondly, he doesn't have a majority so it wouldn't be as significant as if he did. Thirdly, Ed Miliband is an opportunistic little shit.
I would have thought they may well back the Government.
What I don't understand is that it really didn't need to be like this. He could have achieved the moral high ground, brought the parties together and earned the respect of the public.
He wants a vote on his amendment but no one is quite sure what it is.
@make_trouble: So Ed cannot define the "precise & achievable objectives" he demands. His road map is essentially just words for their own sake.
Could be fun
I'll leave it at we'll have to agree to disagree.
tim has gone MIA with expert timing I see...
Ferrari will switch their full focus to 2014 at the end of September - http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/122631.html
Sounds like a practical concession of this season to Red Bull. Not too surprising.
Sticking with the Prancing Horse, they want to keep Massa, but it's contingent on his results improving - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23873997
I'll be keeping an eye on that market. Di Resta or Hulkenberg would be the favourites, in my eyes, to replace him. Personally, I'd go for Hulkenberg.
'Can anyone summarise what is happening tonight?'
Ed's making a complete fool of himself?
What was the difference?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-civil-war-pope-and-jordans-king-abdullah-say-dialogue-the-only-option-8789871.html
Agreed.
"Military intervention is only a responsible course of action if it can succeed in achieving a clearly defined set of goals. Otherwise its only purpose is to massage our collective conscience. And that’s not good enough."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/syria-what-happens-if-missiles-alone-cant-do-the-job/
Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP:
"...in common with several other politicians, I've been lobbied by FCO types in support of an intervention in Syria since long before the gas attack. Their justification has changed, but their goal hasn't.
I simply don't believe that the government's actual motive for wanting to intervene is the same as its stated motive. And that, as we learned in Suez and in the second Iraq war, is a poor basis on which to proceed."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100233008/parliament-is-right-to-be-sceptical-this-isnt-really-about-chemical-weapons/
Rifkind once again showing why he was a good advocate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/syria-reported-chemical-weapons-use-joint-intelligence-committee-letter
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235098/Chemical-weapon-use-by-Syrian-regime-UK-government-legal-position.pdf
I am impressed that our government lawyers have managed to turn the Russian/Chinese vetoes into an argument in favour of the legality of action.
Agreed.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-legal-doubt-british-intervention
Miliband's speech a weasel looking for a hole to vanish into. Shifty. Embarrassed. Labour traumatised by Iraq.
Sleazy, broken Warmongers on the slide?
It will be interesting to see who has rebelled against Cameron. I'm not in favour of opening The Syrian Pandora's box. The why now question after 14 other uses of CW in 2 years doesn't appear to be answered.
Aside from a few very limited and short interjections on points of clarification nothing and nobody stood out particularly. Both leaders tried to set out their stalls and struggled since this is a moving target due to the amendment and due to the limited information available.
You add to that the spectre of Blair and the knowledge that there could well be missile strikes regardless of the UK position and it was never going to be parliament at it's best.
There might be individual contributions from now on that do well but the leaders were uninspiring and fairly predictable. Little Ed and Cammie just aren't that great at these type of debates. Neither is forensic enough and they don't have an ear for the killer line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23875557
However, I really dislike the way it's portrayed as exclusively something men do to women. There is a very large male minority of victims, and of course the abuse can and does happen in homosexual relationships as well. It seems like one of the last bastions of unthinking, blinkered sexism to pretend men couldn't possibly be victims.
GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot
If Jack Straw "accepted my responsibility fully" on #Iraq, he would admit that he was party to an illegal war and a crime against peace.
still?
If we decide that Russia are not one of them, and they decide they wish to prove that they are - what then?
It will be interesting to see how long the poisonous ghost of Blair's claims lingers.
It's a holding position that won't hold for very long, though.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog
I've long suspected that he is a much better political tactician and policy-man than he is leader, and today shows that; he just isn't very strong and commanding at the set-pieces. I bet a lot of Labour MPs will be seriously underwhelmed with him today.
Just my opinion though, and I doubt today's events will have any impact on voting intentions.
Labour spokesman now making a statement on the level of 'personal insult' directed at Ed Miliband. "This is uncalled for and demeaning"
Awwww. are the nasty tories being mean to poor ickle Miliband?
Stop it, stop it, they're being mean! Can they not see that Ed is swift and decisive in his dithering?
Only EIGHT per cent of Britons want urgent strikes on Syria, new poll reveals
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425446/Only-EIGHT-per-cent-of-Britons-want-urgent-strikes-on-Syria-new-poll-reveals