Cameron wins Syria airstrikes vote by majority of 174 – as it happened

The Stop the War Coalition has put out a statement about the result of the vote. Here’s an extract.

We are pleased that a large majority of Labour MPs voted with their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to oppose this Tory war. However, we feel the speeches and votes of pro-war Labour MPs shows how little they understand the lessons of Iraq and other previous wars. Like the Bourbons they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. None of the wars launched by the UK and US from Afghanistan in 2001, through Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011, has yet ended. Millions still suffer from those decisions - today’s vote will add millions more.

According to an LBC reporter at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, the base used by British planes flying over Iraq and Syria, two jets have taken off following the vote.

Sky’s Faisal Islam has a breakdown of how members of the shadow cabinet voted.

David Cameron has tweeted his reaction to the result.

Here is the Guardian’s front page.

Our reporter Ben Quinn sends this from the protest in Parliament Square:

The anti-war protest outside Westminster included members of Momentum, the movement set up in the wake Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership victory, who carried a large red banner.

Max Schnieder, a Momentum organiser, rejected the suggestion that the movement would be mobilised against MPs who voted for airstrikes.

We have made it absolutely clear that we are not campaigning on deselection. Of course, we think that people who are voting on bombing are wrong and we are disappointed in each person that we were unable to win the argument with them.

We have been encouraging our supporters and others who are opposed to bombing to write to their MPs and tell them that David Cameron has not made the case for war and so we are here in solidarity with the other protestors.

Danny Hackett, a Labour party councillor from Bexley, had words with a couple of protestrrs as a policeman looked on, describing Momentum as “scum”.

“Momentum are not here to campaign for the Labour party. They are here to push their own agenda. I you compare them to Progress, who I am a member of, they are out there fighting for the Labour party,” he said.

Hackett, who walked over to the protest in the company of two friends, including a former Conservative councillor, added: “At this moment in time, I have more in common with the Conservatives than with Momentum and that is a great shame.”

Belinda Chapman, who was carrying a Stop the War placard, remonstrated with Bexley when she heard him criticising Momentum. “I have been a member of the Labour party for many years, although I left during the Blair era. I was sitting here and couldn’t believe it when a Labour party councillor came over to say that he wanted to bomb Syria. We want them out of our party. We want Eagle out, Benn out..all of them.”

She agreed with Bexley on one point : it felt as if they were in two different parties.

The pilots and other aircrew at the home of the Tornados, RAF Marham in Norfolk, have been working to get two more jets ready to fly out to reinforce UK planes already in action as quickly as possible after the Commons vote.

They will bring the total number of Tornados up to 10, allowing the RAF to increase sorties from two a day.

Captain Richard Davies, a Tornado pilot and station commander, said: “We have aircraft at a readiness state so they are prepared and ready to deploy.”

How soon could the RAF be in action over Syria ? “If a vote yes, if Tornados flying at that time and if there is a target in Syria, UK bombing could happen overnight … If all those ducks are aligned and the aircraft are airborne at that moment and a target comes up they will go. It depends where they are. If we are airborne in Iraq and the vote is yes we could be targeting on that mission,” Davies said.

Engineers and ground crew were working on the two jets while the air crew underwent last-minute training in the air and with simulators.

Some of the staff have already flown missions over Iraq and see little difference in expanding into Syria other than relishing the prospect of the freedom of being able to continue pursuit of Islamic State on the other side of the border.

In pooled copy from the base, one of the weapons crew, whose has to remain anonymous, was asked by a reporter what it felt like when he knew he was going to fire a weapon.

“Blood pressure goes up, heart rate increases. You hear breathing rates increase and you know the next event will be potentially the weapon coming off the aircraft. Once you get over that initial ‘right this is it’. then ….it is part of the routine.”

For some weapons, it is just a matter of of sending them to a GPS coordinate. But the Brimstone missile, touted by prime minister David Cameron as a precision weapon that reduces the chance of civilian casualties, the weapons operator said that if “you have fired something like Brimstone then you can have another peak in your blood pressure and your breathing and your heart rate (goes up) especially as a back seater (weapons systems operator) because I am now guiding that weapon into the target.”

One of the pilots, also anonymous, added: “The weapon is very precise. You can deploy it extremely accurately. It has got a small warhead, which means there is a limited effect. Hopefully you will only have the effect that you want on the target. You can employ in an urban area and have the desired effect that you want on the target and people standing only a number of yards away from it will hear a bang but can expect to be unaffected by that warhead going off.”

This is from the FT’s George Parker.

There have been rumours that Rosie Winterton, the Labour chief whip, voted with the government. But she didn’t, the Mirror reports.

Sky is reporting that 67 Labour MPs voted for airstrikes, and 152 voted against.

Labour’s Stella Creasy says Hilary Benn’s speech persuaded her to vote with the government.

Anti-war activists have been targeting Creasy over Syria, so it should be a lively meeting.

Here is video of some of Hilary Benn’s speech.

MPs are now voting on the main motion.

The full text of that is here, at 9.18am.

Around 60 Labour MPs voted against the John Baron amendment, according to Sky.

Most of those MPs are likely to be voting with the government for airstrikes in the vote taking place now.

Here is audio of Hilary Benn’s speech.

Here are the clips from Hilary Benn’s speech, regarded as the best of the day.

MPs are now voting. They are voting first on the cross-party amendment tabled by John Baron saying the case for airstrikes has not been made.

The full text of the amendment was posted earlier, at 9.30am.

Hammond is still speaking. He says the question is this: do we wait for Isis to attack us? Or do we take the fight to them?

What kind of a country would we be if we were unmoved by the rape and murder that Isis imposes on people?

And what kind of country would we be if we ignored pleas for help from our nearest neighbours?

Hammond says MPs should give a clear and simple message to our allies, our enemies and our brave forces. We should endorse the motion.

Here is the final section of Hilary Benn’s speech, which was greeted by (a very unusual) round of applause in the chamber.

Mr Speaker, I hope the House will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the house. As a party, we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility, one to another. We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road.

And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight and all of the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy – the means by which we will make our decision tonight – in contempt.

And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated and it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists were just one part of the international brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It’s why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice and my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria and that is why I ask my colleagues to vote in favour of this motion tonight.

More to follow ...

Hammond turns to the question of whether airstrikes will make Britain more vulnerable.

In 2014, there were 15 external Isis attacks. This year there have been 150, he says. He says Britain is already a top-tier threat.

Hammond says the British rules of engagement are “among the most restrictive in the world”. Having Britain involved in air strikes will save lives, he says.

Hammond says there is now a diplomatic settlement under way.

The countries involved accept the need to preserve the institutions of the Syrian state and they have set a timetable for a transition to a new government.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, says there can be no military solution to the Syrian crisis, Hammond says. There has to be a political solution, Kerry says. Kerry says the Vienna process offers the best hope for four years. And, Hammond goes on, Kerry says the Russians are committed to this process, and that they are open to a new constitution for Syria and elections.

Hammond says there are Islamists in the Syrian opposition.

But the UK can work with Islamists. There are Islamists in the parliaments of Kuwait and Tunisia, he says.

Hammond says 104 backbenchers have spoken in the debate. They have done justice to the subject, he says.

One of the key issues has been, What is the military plan?

All MPs agree that airstrikes on their own will not defeat Isis.

But they will make a difference, he says.

Opponents of the government argue that bombing Raqqa won’t make a difference, and that it will also create a power vacuum. They cannot have it both ways, he says.

He says ultimately there will have to be a ground assault on Raqqa. But that may be months away, or years away.

MPs are applauding Benn’s speech. That is very unusual. But it was a great speech - the best of the day.

Benn says he is directing his closing remarks to Labour MPs.

As a party, they have always been defined by internationalism.

We are here faced by fascists, he says. These people hold us, and our values in contempt.

Fascists need to be confronted, he says. Labour has always stood up to them. We must now confront this evil, he says.

Benn says the threat is now. There are rarely, if ever, perfect circumstances to deploy forces.

He reads remarks from the the Kurdistan high representative in London last week. He said that airstrikes saved Kurdistan when Isis attacked.

Benn says Syrian refugees just want to go home.

He lists some of the human rights abuses committed by Isis (or Daesh as he calls them), and he lists some of the terrorist attacks for which they are responsible.

Can we really leave it to others to defend our national security?

If we don’t act, what message will that send, he says.

He says President Hollande is leader of Labour’s sister socialist party. He has asked for help. Britain is already engaged in air strikes in Iraq. Should we not play our full part?

People say airstrikes don’t achieve much. But before the UK engaged in airstrikes in Iraq Isis was almost at the gates of Baghdad, he says.

Benn says there is now a clear and unambiguous UN security council resolution. It calls on member states to take all necessary measures to tackle Isis.

So the UN is asking us to act now, he says.

And it was a Labour government that helped to found the UN. Why? Because it wanted the nations of the world to work together.

Given that the UN has passed this resolution, why would we not support it, he asks.

There seems to be a Liberal Democrat rebellion under way. Well, Norman Lamb – one of the party’s eight MPs – has tweeted that he will be voting against airstrikes, even though the official party line is to vote with the government.

The party’s leader, Tim Farron, set out his reasons for voting for extending airstrikes earlier (15.24).

Labour’s Clive Efford is speaking now. He says he will not be backing the government.

Labour’s Ruth Smeeth says she will vote for airstrikes.

Labour’s David Lammy says he will vote against the government.

In the chamber, the SNP’s Stephen Gethins is speaking now. He says the government has spent just £25m on reconstruction in Libya.

Meanwhile, in the debate in the Lords, Labour peer and former minister Jeffrey Rooker says his party needs to “get rid” of Jeremy Corbyn.

Speaking in favour of military action in Syria, Rooker says he is in the “terrible position” of thinking that members of the Tory cabinet would make better prime ministers than his own party’s leader. He said:

My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies - and he won’t. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister... The case is clear, Daesh is coming for us. They try to use our innate tolerance to undermine us – exactly the same way as the anti-British Trots in the Labour party are using our tolerance to try and get control. The history of Munich tells me not to give in to the easy route. If you don’t fight when under attack, you lose – and we are under attack.

Shabana Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Ladywood and former shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, says she will vote against the government.

She says she knows how hard it is to vote in favour and against military action, and that it is impossible to say in hindsight that a decision was 100% right or 100% wrong. She says she is a Sunni Muslim and that Isis is not representative of her faith. “In Isil, I am well aware that a Muslim like myself would be killed. So please believe me when I say that I do not simply want to see Isil defeated, I want them eradicated... But I believe that the action proposed will not work.”

But, she says, that her instinct tells her that military action will not make the UK more of a threat. She concludes:

There has been some suggestion in the last day or so that when the time for apportioning blame comes, those who have voted in favour will have to step forward and there will be nowhere to hide. If you vote against, as I will, the implication is that you can avoid the blame. To those who think this way, let me say this: if only the world were that simple. There are consequences and innocent people will die through action and in-action. Whatever we do tonight we will all bear a measure of responsibility.

This seemed to be a reference to comments from Jeremy Corbyn and from the Labour MP Clive Lewis.

Labour MP Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions, has said he will vote against airstrikes.

He says that the UN resolution does not in itself authorise force, but he accepts that it implies authorisation and could be used to provide a legal basis for action that has already been taken and that may be taken after the vote.

The question for me is whether, if lawful, the action is nonetheless compelling and coherent. The argument that there’s no logic taking military action in Iraq but not in Syria is seductive and powerful, but in the end it’s unconvincing. Mr Speaker, the situation in Syria is very different to the situation in Iraq … that does not mean there should be no response in Syria and there is much in the prime minister’s motion that I would agree with … but whether there is to be airstrikes is another matter … Airstrikes without an effective ground force are unlikely to make any meaningful contribution to defeating Daesh. There is no effective ground force.

Hansard now has transcripts of the speeches up to 6pm.

“Over ten years ago, I marched with a million other people against the war,” says the new Conservative MP for Twickenham Tania Mathias, who previously worked for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip. “Today I do believe it is different – there is a United Nations resolution,” she says.

She begins to get emotional and pauses to compose herself. “When I go through the ayes lobby, it will be for the refugees and it will be for the security in Twickenham.”

Labour MP Ruth Smeeth says both her country and her party have a “proud history” of standing up to tyranny which started with the stand against fascism in the 1930s. “We must not fall into the mindset of isolationism,” she says. “There is a risk of inaction, just as there is a risk of action.”

As a liberal democracy, the UK must stand up against religious fascism, she says. She says she is “making the difficult decision of extending action against Daesh”.

Conservative MP David Burrowes points out that Corbyn was the teller for the no votes on the vote to launch airstrikes in Iraq in September last year, so says it is clear that Corbyn is against that military action too. Corbyn didn’t give a direct answer when he was asked several times during his statement this morning whether he would like to end airstrikes in Iraq.

The Labour MP Alison McGovern indicated that she would vote with the government.

If I vote for airstrikes today, I need to believe that the prime minister will stand beside those in the world who need him tomorrow. Part of the justification for the strikes is to show our commitment to the coalition against Daesh, that we are truly part of the fight, but if the prime minister wants my support, I want to see his commitment to the bigger fight ahead of us. Because the biggest recruitment for vile extremism is want. It is dissatisfaction with the chances the world is offering you, whether in the back streets of Britain or the cities of Africa and the Middle East where young people find that the powerful in our world forget them far too quickly.

Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative, gave a moving speech earlier in which he spoke of his knowledge of Syria. It was important to fight Isis, he said.

This is an enormously sad moment for me, I grew up as a young journalist in Lebanon spending my holidays in Syria. I know the country well and I love the people dearly - they gave me a kindness that no one else showed, they gave me a warmth and a richness of culture and history. It has been the most extraordinary sorrow for me to watch the destruction of Damascus, of Aleppo, of Homs and Hama, to see the Christians driven from Ma’loula, to see friends of mine, priests and monks driven from their monasteries and murdered.

And I know who is doing it, and we know who is doing it - yes, it is the Islamic State, the so-called Islamic State, this twisted perversion of Islam that is to Islam what fascism is to nationalism, that is to Islam what communism is to socialism. This vile, Stalinist death cult, this dreadful regime must, I’m sorry to say, be stopped, and sadly the only way to stop it is not through talks.

Here is a fresh prediction as to the number of Labour MPs voting with the government.

David Cameron is back in the chamber listening to the debate.

Mary Creagh, the Labour MP, says she will be voting for airstrikes.

As a Labour MP I believe we have to choose and shape Britain’s place in the world if we are to create a world where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few. And Isil poses a clear threat to Britain ...

For the past 14 months UK forces have carried out airstrikes against Isil against Iraq with no civilian casualties, so for me it makes no sense to turn our planes back at the Syrian border and allow them to regroup there.

She also says she voted against airstrikes against Syria in 2013. But she now thinks that vote was wrong.

John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, has just cut the time limit on speeches down to three minutes.

Here is Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP, on the protests outside the Commons.

A Labour source in favour of airstrikes says at least 45 Labour MPs are expected to vote with the government, and that the figure could reach 50. He says his camp has been getting undecided MPs to watch Margaret Beckett’s speech. It was an exceptional speech, he said, and she was seen as a particularly persuasive advocate because of her background on the Labour left.

Back in the chamber Martin Vickers, a Conservative, says he has “deeply-held reservations about supporting the extension of the bombing campaign without a long-term strategy”.

He says the government has talked about there being 70,000 moderate opposition fighters. But they are a disparate group, he says.

He says that he understands the argument about helping our French allies. But sometimes it is necessary to say to your allies: “Perhaps this is not the time to be doing what you are doing,” he says.

This is what France did in 2003, when they did not support the Iraq war, he says. He ends:

My instinct is to say to the government to hold back at this stage.

All eyes are on the debate in the House of Commons, but peers in the House of Lords have also been debating the topic today.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, warned against doing “the right thing in such a wrong way that it becomes the wrong thing”.

The just war criteria have, to my mind, been met. But while they are necessary, they are not by themselves sufficient, in action at this time... Our bombing action plays into the expectation of Isil and other jihadist groups in the region, springing from their apocalyptic theology. The totality of our actions must subvert that false narrative because by itself it will not work. If we act only against Isil globally and only in the way proposed so far we will strengthen their resolve, increase their recruitment and encourage their sympathisers. Without a far more comprehensive approach we confirm their dreadful belief that what they are doing is the will of God.

Labour peer Parry Mitchell hit out against the stance of his own party’s leadership. “I look at my party’s leadership and I despair,” he said. “Since when did we become a party of pacifists?”

Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown, who is backing the government’s position, said he hoped the airstrikes would mark “a watershed” in UK foreign policy. “For the last 10 years since ‘shock and awe’ we have been obsessed with high explosive as our single instrument of foreign policy,” he said.

Here are more pictures from the demonstration outside the Commons.

The shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, confirmed to the BBC earlier that he would be voting against extending airstrikes to Syria. He said it was probably the most difficult decision he had ever had to make as an MP and that the situation was very complex. Although he insisted he wouldn’t rule out military intervention in Syria completely, he said: “I believe the case has not been fully made by the prime minister.”

Jim Dowd, the Labour MP, said he supported airstrikes in a speech a few minutes ago. In a funny contribution, he explained why he would not support the anti-government amendment.

I will certainly not be voting for the amendment for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the weasel words and the sophistry it employs in saying ‘the case has not been made’. That’s the kind of thing the Liberals used to say before 2010 when they had to face up to responsibility.

He also criticised those opposing airstrikes for thinking they were morally superior.

It is almost the impression that those who say the case has not been made have a higher moral standard, a transcendent judgment superior to those who disagree with them.

Google have sent us a list of the top questions being asked on Google in relation to David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn and the Syria debate.

And here are the top questions generally.

Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP who has tabled a motion criticising Cameron’s plan which will not be put to a vote (see 9:30am), has just finished a speech saying he would not be voting with the government. And he ended with praise for John Bercow, commending him for having stayed in the Speaker’s chair for the whole debate so far (more than seven hours). Gardiner said he must have a strong bladder.

The National Union of Students has voted unanimously in favour of a motion to oppose the UK joining airstrikes in Syria. NUS international students’ officer, Mostafa Rajaai, said: “The government has no clear plan for involving British armed forces in Syria, and we call upon MPs to listen to our call, and vote against military intervention.”

What will happen if parliament votes for military action? Ewen Macaskill has written a story which will be on our website soon. Here’s how it starts.

The Ministry of Defence issued a list on Wednesday of a series of airstrikes over the last few days aimed at Islamic State targets in Iraq. The next list, assuming the vote in the Commons goes according to the government’s plan, is almost certain to include targets in Syria too.

Targets in Iraq and Syria are chosen by a US-run headquarters in Qatar ... The headquarters then allocates a plane – a bit like a military Uber – according to which plane is closest and the weaponry being carried.

For example, the RAF, in its hit-list of targets in Iraq published on Wednesday before the vote, said a Tornado had hit an Isis sniper team in Ramadi in Iraq on Thursday and demolished a building. On the same day, Tornados destroyed an Isis machine-gun firing on Kurds.

The Labour MP Phil Wilson says that he will be backing the government.

Wilson has tweeted a link to Dan Jarvis’s article explaining why he is backing airstrikes.

And here is Labour’s Steve McCabe on Wilson’s speech.

The Guardian’s correspondent in the south-west, Steven Morris, is at an anti-war protest in Bristol:

The Labour MP John Woodcock criticised Jeremy Corbyn and his allies for setting “a myriad of conditions [for intervention] which they know will never be met”. (See 6.07pm.)

In a related tweet, my colleague Patrick Wintour is speculating as to possible reasons why Corbyn was reluctant to say whether or not he backed airstrikes against Isis in Iraq. (See 12.40pm.)

Shiv Malik has just spoken to General Michael Flynn, the head of the Defence Intelligence Agency in the US until his retirement in August last year. He’s adamantly against bombing and linked such a strategy to the likelihood of increased terrorist attacks in the west.

Asked whether ariel bombardment by western forces would work in dislodging Isis, Flynn said, “No, no, not at all. It’s actually having a counter affect.”

We drop a 2000lb bomb from 10,000ft because it is safe and sound for us. They send eight guys to Paris, that’s their counter-attack. They don’t have surface to air missiles to shoot the planes out of the sky, or the drones out of sky. They have soldiers who go into cities and towns and they attack places that’s how they counter-attack. So it’s global. This is their tit for tat. We attack a place in Syria, we blow up a couple of leaders in a house one night, they counter-attack in Paris.

Flynn described the current western military strategy against Isis as “totally incoherent” and “piecemeal”.

We’re sort of incrementally trying to solve this problem, when it needs massive surgery.

A woman has put herself under a lorry at the anti-war protest outside Westminster. Traffic is still moving but the police are trying to get her out.

Numbers are meanwhile building among anti-war protesters in Parliament Square, where a few hundred or so are currently gathered.

However, many more are expected to arrive from 6pm onwards after the beginning of the main protest, which may yet be addressed by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

The Guardian has now counted at least 33 Labour MPs who are minded to vote in favour of the government plans and one probable abstention [see full list at 13.44pm update]. There are roughly another 10 whose public statements look like they are sympathetic towards supporting the airstrikes. Labour leadership sources have told the Telegraph that they think 90 will end up backing Cameron but that seems much too high, in spite of some being won over to the pro-airstrike side by interventions from figures such as Margaret Beckett and Alan Johnson. Sources in the pro-strike Labour camp still think the number will be more like 50 to 60. At least 112 Labour MPs out of 231 overall have now released statements saying they will vote against.

Several Labour MPs have published statements or tweets this afternoon explaining their decisions to back the military action to their constituents, such as Neil Coyle, Kevin Barron, and Adrian Bailey, while others such as Yvette Cooper, Pat McFadden and Joan Ryan have made their positions clear in the chamber. This piece from Coyle, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark talks about how he has faced intimidation over the decision:

Coming back to the issue of fear, I think we must have the courage to do what we think is right, irrespective of the inevitable backlash. I have faced physical threats over how I might vote on this issue. Those threats are unacceptable and do not shape my position or decision. Quite the opposite.

The firm Tory rebels who will vote against the airstrikes so far are David Davis, John Baron, Dr Julian Lewis, Andrew Tyrie and Stephen McPartland. Sir Edward Leigh is a possible if he does not get some reassurance from foreign secretary Philip Hammond about whether there is an immediate threat to the UK. There could be others who abstain or end up voting against as well.

In the Commons Labour’s Kate Hoey says she is not against bombing in principle. But she says there are too many unanswered questions for her to support airstrikes now.

Peers are also debating Syria in the House of Lords. William Hague, the former foreign secretary, has given his maiden speech in the debate, suggesting there may be a need for ground troops in Syria.

I will post the quotes shortly.

(You can watch the Lords speeches on Parliament TV too.)

Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative (who has tabled his own amendment to the motion - see 9.30am), says he is “full of doubts”. He says the west has made some terrible decisions in relation to the Middle East.

He says if Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, could convince him in his summing up that there is a command and control centre in Raqqa threatening London, he could be persuaded to vote with the government. But he has to be sure the government is acting in self-defence, he says. (That is the point of his amendment.)

He also says he wants to know it will be a “just war” and that the government should act “with deep humanity”.

John Bercow, the Speaker, has now imposed a four-minute time limit on debates.

The Labour MP Joan Ryan says she will be voting with the government.

If you want to catch up with any of the speeches in the debate, Parliament TV now has a very useful index function that allow you to pick a speaker, click on the name and watch the speech from the start immediately. Previously you had to search using playback manually.

Ivan Lewis, the Labour former shadow international development secretary, says that in some circumstances he is in favour of military action. But tonight he will be voting against the government, he says, because he does not think the government has a credible overall strategy for success.

David Jones, the former Welsh secretary, says he is backing the government. But it was “honourable” for MPs to vote against the government, he says.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, said everyone in the house was committed to getting rid of Isis. But some are more committed to looking at the evidence as to whether bombing as actually worked, she said

She said the government should be doing more to get countries like Saudi Arabia to stop helping Isis get arms.

Here’s another report from Guardian journalists Damien Gayle and Francis Churchill, who are covering the protests outside parliament:

Annette Thomas, from Islington, is proud to have Jeremy Corbyn as her constituency MP, and she backs his anti-war stance. Like many of those opposed to the war, she fears British bombs will inevitably kill innocent civilians.

“Isis just lives in among all those people, they don’t have a headquarters,” she said outside parliament. “You drop a bomb, you will blow up a dozen houses, you will kill a couple of hundred people, and you might get one Islamic murderer, which is what they are.”

Jackie Walker, from Thanet, is chair of her local Momentum group. She was scathing about the actions of the high-profile Labour rebels opposing Corbyn’s anti-war stance. “It’s shameful, because if you look at what the Labour membership actually want, it [war] is definitely against what the Labour membership want.

“I think some of them are using it to further their own careers and I think we need unity in the party and we should be rallying round.”

Conservative MP, Johnny Mercer, who is a former British Army Officer, said he wouldn’t seek to contribute any clever, intellectual argument to the debate, but would instead comment on the decision facing MPs.

I feel very strongly about national security. I’ve seen the threats that we face with my own eyes and I’ve felt them with my own hands. We have a privileged way of life in this country, a free democracy and a free speech society and a healthy economy... We are chiefly blessed because over the generations we’ve had men and women who believe so much in this nation that they’ve taken difficult political decisions and some have even taken up arms and sacrificed everything to protect this way of life. Mr Speaker, I’ve become worried of late that we’ve lost some of that spirit.

Dan Jarvis, MP for Barnsley Central who served in the parachute regiment, began his speech by speaking out against the tactics deployed by some anti-airstrikes campaigners to persuade MPs to vote against the motion:

Let us be very clear, there is principle in opposing military action, just like there is principle in supporting it. Everyone must have the freedom, either in this place or outside, to say what they believe to be right without the fear of recrimination.

Jarvis concluded:

My party, the Labour party, has a proud and long tradition of standing up for the national interest when our country is under threat. When the war cabinet met in 1940 it was the Labour ministers Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood who tipped the balance in favour of resisting naziism. Daesh are the fascists of our time and I believe there is still a dignity in uniting with our allies in common cause against a common enemy in defence of our common humanity and that is what I hope we will do.

We’re updating some of the earlier posts as we go along, adding the best direct quotes. You may need to refresh the page for these to appear.

Former first minister of Scotland Alex Salmond responded to Streeter by saying that while we can’t do nothing about Isis, that is not an argument for doing anything.

He said bombing would led to casualties.

A number of times I’ve heard the argument that minimising civilian casualties from a bombing campaign. I bow to no one in terms of the skill of our pilots and sophistication of weapons but if you actually believe that we’re going to engage in a bombing campaign in a concentrated urban city area like Raqqa and there’s not going to be civilian casualties, then you are living on a different planet from any other.

He said the UK makes up 10% of the current flights in Iraq and will not make any conceivable difference in Syria, where there are “too many planes already chasing too many targets”. He said we spent 13 times as much bombing Libya as was spent on reconstruction.

Salmond asked why Britain was not supplying Kurdish Peshmerga forces with heavy weapons so they could control the Isis supply line between Raqqa and Mosul in Iraq.

Why haven’t we given the Peshmerga heavy armour, why haven’t we given them heavy weapons, why do they have to dominate the road between Mosul and Raqqa using only machine guns? I suspect the answer I wasn’t given, the true answer, is because it would offend our Nato allies in Turkey who spend as much, if not more, time bombing our allies in the Kurds than they do in pursuing the campaign against Daesh.

He called on the government to instead focus on “interrupting and dislocating the internet strategy which they pursue”.

If we as a Western liberal democracy can’t pursue a successful campaign of propaganda against a death cult then we should have a very good look at ourselves.

For one of our fast, smart bombs, we could have a whole squadron of people taking down [Isis’s] websites and stopping the communication and contaminating the minds of young people across Europe and the world. And here I very much agree with the leader of the Labour party about the interruption of the financial resources without which this evil cult could not function... Finally I would say this: we are being asked to intervene in a bloody civil war of huge complexity, we are being asked to do it without an exit strategy and no reasonable means of saying we are going to make a difference. We should not give the prime minister that permission.

Gary Streeter, Conservative MP for South West Devon, says he is prepared to trust the prime minister on the 70,000 troops figure.

We all must accept, and many people have said this, that the situation is a mess, and there are no easy answers. But in the end, we are being attacked by a bunch of ruthless barbarians who seek to destroy the values that we hold dear. It is just and right that we should defend ourselves and the many innocent people that they kill, maim and enslave on a daily basis.

David Winnick, Labour MP for Walsall North who will oppose airstrikes, says Labour MPs should be able to vote according to their conscience without fear of threats.

I’ve supported more military action in the last 30 years than I’ve opposed it. But I’ve done so on the basis that there’s an objective. In the liberation of Kuwait, for example, there was a clear objective. There was a clear objective in Kosovo, which I not only supported but I urged that the massacre of Muslims be halted ...

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr:

If we are to tackle the ideology, if we are to tackle these people, then we cannot do it alone through airstrikes ... I have had a fairly strong position for a long time that we should support action against Daesh. I today am in a quandary from all the people that have spoken to me – my constituents, some of the people who have spoken to me in this place – and I find myself in a very different place because some of the things that have been said by the prime minister.

Mahmood says that the only way to deal with Isis is by having troops on the ground.

Here’s more reporting from the protests outside parliament:

Chris Nineham, vice-chair of the Stop the War coalition, was on College Green giving interviews to broadcasters from around the world. Activists from the campaign will be outside parliament all day, ahead of their planned mass protest at 6pm this evening.

“The main thing is we want to be here in numbers as the debate draws to a close and as the actual vote approaches,” Nineham said. “We are expecting another big turnout. We are going to do a big ‘die-in’ on Parliament Square to try to demonstrate the impact that bombing will have on the people of Syria.”

With thousands of people already being killed by bombing in Syria, Nineham said, for Britain to join the air war would not only be catastrophic in human terms, but also in terms of the impact on public opinion in the Middle East.

He added: “We want to send a message to MPs: why would you follow these leaders into supporting a war when most of them voted for the Iraq war and voted for the bombing in Libya? Doesn’t that first of all bring into fundamental question their judgement on these matters? And two, doesn’t it suggest that these are incorrigible hawks who are using the situation as a pretext to get back on to the attack?”

Nineham said he was pleased with the public response to the campaign to deter MPs from voting in favour of the war. “We have had thousands of people out on Saturday, not just in London but across the country,” he said. “Last night we had an even bigger protest. It was definitely more than 5,000.”

He added: “There is a surge of anti-war feeling and anti-war activism in this country and we urge all MPs to take note of that today.”

Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, said she was pleased that her inbox has been full of messages from people telling her not to vote in favour of airstrikes. “I would be deeply troubled if my email inbox was full of people gung-ho saying ‘go and get them’,” she said, but she will still vote in favour of airstrikes.

There are many unanswered questions about this area of the world, but none of us can claim to know what the next steps will be... just as actions have consequences so does inaction. The danger for government is always to know when not to do something... and the danger for opposition is to think that because we are in opposition it is appropriate to always oppose.... occasionally it is right to support a government even when you don’t entirely agree with the motion that is on the order paper, but I will be supporting the motion tonight because it is good enough...

Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment secretary, said he would be supporting the government. But he urged the government to think about how the Sunni and other local powers could be brought in to achieve a long-term fix.

There will, ultimately, have to be an international presence to help grow these local institutions, but we must build it around the local ethnic groups.

Mark Pritchard, another Conservative, also said he was backing the government. He appealed to Labour MPs to back Cameron too.

The argument could be, can Socialists ever fight just wars? There is the late, great Jack Jones, the union man himself, who stood up for freedom and democracy. So too Clement Attlee, Major Attlee, a wounded war hero. And Ernest Bevin, arguably Labour’s best foreign secretary. All fought for freedom and liberty in their own ways. Some more to the left than others, I admit, but all Socialists, defending Britain, defending our allies, defending the weak and marginalised, defending the persecuted and oppressed. And I say to undecided Labour MPs look to your proud Socialist histories. But also don’t be bound by recent New Labour history. This is a new challenge, a new threat, we may not all be where we want to be, but we are where we are.

It takes about three hours for Hansard to publish the full transcript of a speech given in the House of Commons. David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn’s speeches are both now available on the Hansard website here, and more will go up as the afternoon goes on.

Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP in Bolton South East, she says she would happily support the motion if she thought it would help the situation.

What’s going on here, with all due respect to the prime minister and the government, is this is a symbolic gesture, basically, to show that we are in the international community, to show that we are siding with France. Of course, what happened in Paris, we are all devastated by that, but to use that as the main reason to go into this extension [of airstrikes] is wrong.

Life is very odd in the Labour party at the moment because the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, is openly briefing against his leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Earlier Corbyn’s spokesman said airstrikes could increase the threat to the UK.

Benn’s spokesman then put out a statement disagreeing.

“The spectre of the Iraq war in 2003 hangs over this House and hangs over the whole debate that we’re having in this country,” said the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron. The late Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy had called for intervention in Bosnia and opposed the “counter-productive and illegal” Iraq war – both principled stances, Farron said. “I am proud of Charles on both counts.”

Farron said his instincts are to be anti-war and anti-conflict and that backing airstrikes is the toughest decision he has had to make as an MP. He put five principles to the prime minister, he said, adding: “My sense is that, on balance, any reasonable person would judge them to be broadly met.”

I think this is the toughest call I’ve ever had to make, maybe ever and certainly in this House. What pushes me in the direction of voting for action is above all things the United Nations resolution 2249, which calls for us to eradicate the safe haven that Isis has, that Daesh has within Syria.

It doesn’t just permit this country but urges this country and all members who are capable of doing so to take all necessary action to get rid of Daesh. If we were just being asked to bomb Syria I’d be voting no, I’d be out there demonstrating in between the speeches, I’d be signing up to those emails from the Stop the War Coalition.

But this is not just a case of bombing, this is standing with the United Nations and the international community to do what is right by people who are the most beleaguered of all.

Farron said that though he will vote with the government, he will not give them his unconditional support, adding that there are “huge questions about the financing of Daesh” and that the UK should take more refugees.

He said his stance was influenced by his experience of visiting the the refugee camps on the Greek island of Lesbos.

I can give you anecdote after anecdote that would break your heart but one in particular is a seven-year-old lad being lifted from a dinghy on the beach at Lesbos and my Arabic interpreter said to me that lad has just said to his dad, ‘Daddy, are Isil here?’

I cannot stand in this House and castigate the prime minister for not taking enough refugees and for Britain not standing tall as it should do in the world and opening its arms to the desperate like we have done so proudly for many, many decades and throughout our history, if we do not also do everything in our power to eradicate that which is the source of those people fleeing from that terror.

We are absolutely under the spectre of a shocking, illegal and a counter-productive war in Iraq and that’s a lesson from history we must learn from.

The danger is today that for too many people we’ll be learning the wrong lessons from history if we choose not to stand with those refugees, not to stand as part of the international community of nations.

This is a very tough call. On balance, it’s right to take military action to degrade and to defeat this evil death cult.

Conservative MPs Keith Simpson and Cheryl Gillan have both backed the government’s motion. And Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s leader at Westminster, confirmed that his party was voting for the government too.

The Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani said she was backing airstrikes.

Labour’s Derek Twigg said he was voting against airstrikes.

Yvette Cooper said she will argue for certain changes to the government’s approach but that she will be voting for airstrikes. Cooper said she didn’t think she could argue for coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to be stopped and that our French allies have asked for our help and we cannot say no.

The MP for Pontefract and Castleford said the prime minister had not made the most effective case, so she understood why many remain unconvinced, and that she sought assurances on a number of points – only some of which she had received.

“If we or the coalition are seen to be siding with Assad or somehow strengthening Assad that will boost recruitment for Daesh as well,” she cautioned. She added her voice to criticism of the suggestion that there are 70,000 troops ready to swoop into territory deserted by Isis. “We know that there aren’t such forces anywhere near Raqqa. We know too that those forces will be divided.

“I also disagree with those who say that instead of Isis first we should somehow have [a] Vienna first [strategy] and that we should wait for the peace process to be completed before taking airstrike action against Daesh. And that’s why I think the coalition airstrikes are needed.” She said the UK cannot step back and give Isis free rein while the vital peace process is ongoing.

If we are to do our bit and to take the strain, I think we need to have more limited objectives than the prime minister has set out – in self-defence, to support the peace process, but not just to create a vacuum for Assad to sweep into.

She said that airstrikes should not go ahead where there is any risk of civilian death and that she would want a time limit on British involvement in Syria. “We should be ready to review and ready to withdraw,” Cooper said.

She concluded:

I would say finally to the government that I have accepted their argument that if we want coalition airstrikes to continue on an international basis, we should be part of that, but I would also urge them to accept my argument that we should do more to provide sanctuary for refugees who are fleeing that conflict.

This is from Francis Churchill, who is covering the protests.

With the Kurds part of the coalition lined up on the ground against Islamic State, you might expect Kurds in Britain to back the UK’s entry into the bombing campaign.

But Mazhar Ruandzi, 62, who was alongside Stop the War protesters outside parliament, said he didn’t believe in the plan. A Kurd who has been in the UK for 35 years, he originally backed Tony Blair’s war in Iraq, but now he is firmly behind Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-war stance.

“I went opposite to Downing Street and carried the banner ‘Mr Blair is right to say rid Saddam, the planet will be a better place’. But I was absolutely wrong and I should be punished for that,” Mazhar said. “Look at Iraq, chaos, havoc, anarchy, destruction, corruption.”

The worst corruption, Mazhar says, is within the Kurdish leadership. “They spread poverty in the heart of the Kurdish community.”

Conservative MP Dr Julian Lewis says he will vote against the proposals because of “the absence of credible ground forces, as ineffective and potentially dangerous, just as I voted against the proposal to bomb Assad in 2013”.

Honourable members are being asked to back airstrikes against Daesh to show solidarity with our French and American friends, yet a gesture of solidarity – however sincerely meant – can’t somehow be a substitute for hard-headed strategy...

Indeed, the fact that the British government wanted to bomb first one side and then the other in the same civil war in such a short space of time illustrates to my mind a vacuum at the heart of our strategy. At least we are now targeting our deadly Islamist enemies rather than trying to bring down yet another dictator with the same likely results as in Iraq and in Libya.

Lewis says that airstrikes alone are a dangerous diversion and distraction and that a “grand military alliance” including Russia and the Syrian government is needed. “We need to choose the lesser of two evils and abandon the fiction of the cosy third choice,” he says. Saddam Hussein’s removal was now widely seen as a mistake, but he was every bit as bad as Assad. “A very similar decision confronts us tonight.”

The list of Labour MPs who are likely to vote in favour of the government’s airstrike plans has been updated to include Yvette Cooper, the former leadership contender who heads Corbyn’s taskforce on refugees, and Margaret Beckett, the former foreign secretary (see post at 1.44pm). There are now 28 names on the list and it will be added to on a rolling basis.

Alan Johnson, the Labour former home secretary, said he backing airstrikes because he thought they would allow Britain to attack the Isis unit organising attacks abroad. He told MPs:

I believe Isis/Daesh poses a real and present danger to British citizens and that its dedicated external operations unit is based not in Iraq, where the RAF is already fully engaged, but in Syria. This external operations unit is responsible for killing 30 British holidaymakers on a beach in Sousse and a British rock fan who perished along with 129 others in the Paris atrocity a few weeks ago.

It is true that this unit could have moved out of Raqqa, but that is not what the intelligence services believe. In fact, just as al-Qaida needed the safe haven they created for themselves in Afghanistan to plan 9/11 and other atrocities, so Isil/Daesh need their self-declared caliphate to finance, train, organise and recruit to their wicked cause.

He admitted this was a difficult decision. And he took a swipe at the Corbynistas who have been attacking Labour MPs over this issue.

Is it a just cause, is the proposed action a last resort, is it proportionate, does it have a reasonable prospect of success, does it have broad regional support, does it have a clear legal base. I think it meets all of those criteria.

I find this decision as difficult as anyone to make, I wish I had frankly the self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics, who will no doubt soon be contacting those of us who support this motion tonight, but I believe that Isil, Daesh, has to be confronted and destroyed if we are to properly defend our country and our way of life and I believe that this motion provides the best way to achieve this objective.

More from Guardian reporters Damien Gayle and Francis Churchill who are at the protests outside parliament:

News crews from all the UK’s major television networks and the biggest international broadcasters are assembled on College Green reporting developments on the marathon parliamentary debate on Wednesday. There too was a gaggle of Stop the War activists, trying to get their group’s banner and placards in front of the cameras.

Among them was Peter Brierley, father of Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, one of the first British soldiers to be killed in Iraq. The clamour and build-up to the war in Syria brought back memories of that conflict, he said.

“For the weapons of mass destruction, you’ve got the threat of terrorism around the world,” he said. “There doesn’t seem to be any sort of real plan. They’ve already been bombing for months and months and months and the only effect it’s having is actually spreading this terrorism around the world.

“Isis aren’t going to stay to be bombed. If they are in Syria under the bombing they are just going to move and they will keep moving. They don’t need bases to plan bombings around the world, they can do that in somebody’s back bedroom.

“There’s so many people there [in Syria] dropping bombs and it isn’t stopping them. All it will do is that it will radicalise people. People are going to get killed, I don’t care how high-precision these bombs are that can target people, those bombs are going to kill civilians.”

Brierley had travelled from Leeds on Tuesday for interviews about the government’s rush to war. He made headlines at a memorial service at St Paul’s cathedral for British servicemen killed in Iraq in 2009 where he refused to shake Tony Blair’s hand.

John Baron, a Conservative MP and member of the foreign affairs committee, has tabled the main, cross-party amendment opposing airstrikes. (See 9.30am.) In his speech he said that he was no pacifist, but that he was concerned about the absence of an overall strategy for tackling Isis.

The short-term effect of British airstrikes will be marginal. But as we intervene more, we become more responsible for the events on the ground and lay ourselves open to the unintended consequences of the fog of war. Without a comprehensive strategy, airstrikes will simply reinforce the west’s long-term failure in the region generally, at a time when there are already too many aircraft chasing too few targets.

And I suggest, just as in previous ill-advised western interventions, a strong pattern emerges. Time and time again the executive makes a convincing case, often with the support of intelligence sources, and time and time again it turns out to be wrong ...

We have stood at this very point before. We should have no excuse for repeating our errors and setting out on the same tragic, misguided path once more.

At a briefing after the opening of the debate No 10 refused to go into any detail about whether fighters for groups including Islamic Front and Ahrar al-Sham are listed as possible “moderate” troops in the government’s 70,000 figure, despite having been clear that the Free Syrian Army are and the al-Nusra Front are not.

However, a Downing Street source explained that the policy from now on would be for Cameron and other government figures to refer to Daesh instead of Isil but that it would take some time to make the transition so that the public are clear on the new name.

A senior Labour source clarified Corbyn’s position on the current airstrikes in Iraq, saying it was his view that this needs to be looked at again because the strategy is not working. “He is questioning whether this is the right way to go, but he is not pressing on this issue, he is focussing on the current issue,” he said.

My colleague Patrick Wintour has written a news story about the opening of the debate. His full story will be up on our site soon, but here is how it starts.

David Cameron has told Britain it has a moral and military duty to attack Islamic State in Syria, saying the move will enhance and not hinder a fledgling diplomatic process.

Opening a near 11-hour debate that is likely to end with a majority to extend the British air campaign from Iraq to Syria, the prime minister admitted his case was difficult and complex but said Britain must decide whether to take on the “evil” of so-called Islamic State in its Syrian heartlands or “wait for them to attack us”.

Cameron insisted that a military effort was only part of the solution but said Britain did have an additional and unique military contribution to make due to its precision bombing capability.

The prime minister was repeatedly asked to apologise for saying some of those voting against airstrikes were a “bunch of terrorist sympathisers” at a private meeting on Tuesday night.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “To brand those who plan to vote against the government as ‘terrorist sympathisers’ both demeans the office of the prime minister and I believe undermines the seriousness of deliberations we are having today.”

Cameron offered no direct apology but said all those voting were doing so honourably, and they all had his respect. “I respect that fact that we’re all discussing how to fight terrorism,” he said, “not whether to fight terrorism.”

The prime minister also insisted ground forces did exist with which western forces could work, claiming the majority of the 70,000 non-extremist forces cited by his intelligence advisers were led by the Free Syrian Army.

He added there were a further 25,000 extremist forces with which the west could not work. Cameron accepted that some of the troops with which the west would work were far from perfect.

Guardian reporter Alice Ross has just spotted that the Foreign Office’s Twitter account to counter Isis propaganda has changed its name. Possibly in response to the prime minister’s decision to use the term Daesh earlier. Here’s our news story from when the account was first launched in August.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the Labour MP and father of the Commons, said Isis did not represent Islam. People were right to loathe it. But that was not the issue. The issue was what could be done to get rid of it, and he said he was not convinced by the government’s case. He said bombing would lead to the killing of innocent civilians.

The issue today is about what practical action can result in some way in damaging Daesh, in stopping their atrocities. If what the government were proposing today would in any way, not even get rid of Daesh but weaken them in a significant way ... I wouldn’t have any difficulty in voting for this motion.

But there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that bombing Daesh, bombing Raqqa, will result in an upsurge of other people in the region to get rid of them. What it would do, it might cause some damage - it won’t undermine them. What it will undoubtedly do, despite the assurances of the Prime Minister, is it will kill innocent civilians.

I am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture.

Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, said MPs should be under no illusion about the threat the UK faced. He said Isis were a particularly violent group.

They tell themselves it’s God’s work and, because it’s God’s work, they accept no man-made restraint, no laws, no borders, and they deploy extreme violence in the prosecution of their self-appointed mission. And we have seen that violence on the sands of Tunisia, we heard it in the screams of the Jordanian pilot who was burnt alive in a cage. We should be under no illusions about the nature of the threat we face. This is not like some of the armed political terrorists we have seen in the past. This is a fundamentally different threat. This is a group that does not seek accommodation. They seek domination.

He said Britain could not avoid this conflict. British intervention would not be a game-changer, but it would make a difference, he said.

But he also said that ultimately ground troops would be needed to defeat Isis.

No conflict is ever won from the air alone ... I believe that ultimately we will need to see an international coalition on the ground [if the fight against Isis] is to be successful in the long term.

Earlier we quoted Charles Lister criticising Jeremy Corbyn for naming a Syrian constituent. On Twitter various people have pointed out that that criticism is unfair because the man Corbyn named is a well-known activist. We’ve updated that post to make that clear. See 1.10pm.

Robertson says there is no evidence that any other forces in Syria (which the prime minister has numbered at 70,000) will be able to move from other fronts without a comprehensive ceasefire first.

He says advice from the World Bank shows it will cost $170bn (£113bn) to rebuild Syria, compared to the $1bn the prime minister has committed. “We are entitled to ask, Mr Speaker, whether a contribution of less than 1% of what is required is realistically going to be enough,” he says.

Rehman Chishti asks Robertson about the campaign to persuade the BBC to use the term Daesh – a campaign that the SNP has supported from the beginning. Robertson says that, as a former journalist at the BBC world service, he cannot understand why the broadcaster does not adopt the term.

“It is beyond me that my former fellow employees cannot bring themselves to use the appropriate terminology,” he says.

Robertson concludes:

Mr Speaker, I was a co-sponsor of the 2003 amendment to oppose invading Iraq and I am proud to sponsor today’s amendment opposing bombing in Syria. I appeal to colleagues on all sides to learn the lessons from Afghanistan, not to ignore the lessons of Iraq, not to ignore the lessons of Libya. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s not give the green light to military action without a comprehensive and credible plan to win the peace.

Leader of the SNP in the Commons, Angus Robertson, is speaking. As leader of the third biggest party in parliament he can take as much time as he wants.

The Scottish National party shares the concerns of everybody else in this house and the country about the terrorist threat by Daesh. We deplore the Assad regime and have regularly raised the issue of refugees in the region and in Europe. There is agreement in this house that the threat from Daesh is real and doing nothing is not an option.

However, we recall that only two years ago, this prime minister and this government wanted us to bomb the opponents of Daesh, which would no doubt have strengthened them. We haven’t heard it yet, but there is no shortage of countries currently bombing in Syria. Most recently, the Russians have been attacking Daesh and too often the moderate opposition to Assad as well. Coalition nations which have conducted atrikes in Syria include – and it’s a long-list Mr Speaker – Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (incidentally which also uses Brimstone as a weapons system), the republic of Turkey (which is also bombing our allies in Kurdistan), the United Arab Emirates and the USA.

Conservative MP Alan Duncan has made a speech. He says the question of whether to commit armed forces to conflict has been “muddied” over the last few years by “the painful experience of past decisions and by the complexity of the unfolding disorder across the Arab world”.

The experiences of Afghanistan in part, to which the leader of the opposition referred, and of Iraq, more significantly, have led to growing reticence and indeed distrust in the House and outside it about any proposal for military action ... may I just point out politely to the Stop the War Coalition that when it actually comes to Syria, stopping the war is exactly what we want to do.

Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center who has written about Isis in Syria, is being very critical of Corbyn’s speech.

UPDATE: On Twitter people have pointed out that Lister was wrong to criticise Corbyn for naming his Syrian constituent because he is a well-known activist.

Here is some reaction from Labour MPs:

Corbyn says the overriding goal should be to end the civil war in Syria.

Our efforts should not be focused on more bombing.

Responding to the heckling (which is still going on), he says members of the public want to hear what MPs are saying.

And that’s it.

Corbyn is moving towards the end.

The government’s proposal for military action in Syria is not backed by clear and unambiguous authorisation by the UN. It does not meet the seven tests set by the foreign affairs select committee.

And it does not fulfil three out of four conditions laid down in Labour’s conference resolution passed two months ago.

He says rejecting the record of military interventions over the last 14 years was a key plank of the campaign he ran when he was elected Labour leader.

Corbyn says the solution in Syria has to come from the people in Syria themselves.

MPs are trying to intervene, but Corbyn says he has taken enough interventions. He is getting loudly heckled, but he is refusing to give way.

Labour’s David Lammy says degrading Isis (or Daesh, as he calls it) could create a vacuum to be filled by other extremists.

David Burrowes, a Conservative, asks Corbyn if he is still opposed to airstrikes in Iraq.

Corbyn says Lammy has made a good point. We must be aware of danger of further radicalisation. Is radicalisation a product of the war, or something else? We need to think deeply about it. I rest my case, he says.

He does not address Burrowes’ Iraq question (which was the same as John Woodcock’s - see 12.40pm).

Corbyn says more bombing in Syria will kill more innocent civilians.

And he reads out a message from a Syrian constituent.

‘I’m a Syrian from Manbij city, which is now controlled by Isil’, he writes. ‘Members of my family still live there and Isil didn’t kill them. My question to David Cameron is: Can you guarantee the safety of my family when your air forces bomb my city?’

Corbyn says airstrikes will increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the UK.

And they could have an impact on ethnic minority communities, he says.

We should also remember the impact on communities here in Britain. Since the Paris attacks there has been a sharp increase in Islamophobic incidents and physical attacks.

The message must go out from all of us in the House: we will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in our country.

Corbyn says there is no coherent diplomatic strategy.

He says the UN resolution does not give “clear and unambiguous” authorisation for action.

The UN resolution is certainly a welcome framework for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil. But there’s little sign of that happening in earnest.

Charlotte Leslie, a Conservative, says that if Corbyn accepts the need to cut off Isis’s oil revenues, he should approve air attacks.

Corbyn suggests it is more important to stop people buying the Isis oil.

Corbyn rejects Cameron’s claim that ground troops are available to take the territory currently held by Isis.

Last week, the prime minister suggested that Kurdish militias or the Free Syrian Army would be able to fill the gap. He even claimed a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters was ready to coordinate action against Isil with the western air campaign.

That claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. Kurdish forces will be of little assistance in the Sunni Arab areas Isil controls. Nor will the FSA, which includes a wide range of groups few would regard as moderate - and mostly operates in other parts of the country.

The only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful anti-Isil air campaign are much stronger jihadist and Salafist groups close to Isil-controlled areas.

Corbyn rejects the argument that British missiles would make a difference.

The claim that superior British missiles will make the difference is hard to credit when the US and other states are struggling to find suitable targets. In other words, extending UK bombing is highly unlikely to work.

Corbyn is now asking whether airstrikes in Syria would make Britain safer.

After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris last month, the question of whether the government’s proposal for military action in Syria strengthens – or undermines – our own national security must be at the centre of our deliberations.

There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign of sectarian and inhuman terror in Iraq, Syria and Libya. And there is no question that it also poses a threat to our own people.

The issue is now whether extending UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat in Britain – and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign Isil is waging across the Middle East.

The answers don’t make the case for the government’s motion. On the contrary, they are a warning to step back and vote against yet another ill-fated twist in the never-ending war on terror.

John Woodcock, the pro-airstrikes Labour MP, asks Corbyn if he will accept that Britain should continue to launch airstrikes against Isis in Iraq.

Corbyn says he does not need to address that because it is not part of the motion today.

• Corbyn sidesteps question about whether he supports ongoing airstrikes in Iraq.

Corbyn was one of the MPs who opposed airstrikes in Iraq in 2014.

Here is the full text of the Labour motion on Syria passed at its conference in September.

Corbyn says since Cameron made his statement to MPs last week, doubts about airstrikes have “only grown and multiplied”.

He says Cameron should have allowed a two-day debate.

Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative, asks if Corbyn agrees with Hilary Benn that the conditions set for approving airstrikes in the Labour conference motion have been met.

Corbyn says he will address that later. But he says, like Zahawi, he agrees that the Kurds should have their own state.

Cameron is now winding up.

He urges MPs to vote in the interests of keeping Britain safe. And he finishes with a tribute to the armed forces.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, says it is important to be seen to stand with our EU allies. But we are not standing with them in terms of taking our fair share of refugees. Will Cameron reconsider the request to take 3,000 Syrian refugee orphans?

Cameron says the UK is taking 20,000 Syrian refugees.

This is from the BBC’s Nick Robinson.

The Lib Dems have just been in touch. They say the extremism funding review (see 12.21pm) is a concession to them, not to Labour. It was one of the Lib Dems’ five conditions for supporting airstrikes, they say.

Cameron describes the latest move in the Syrian peace talks, and says that hurting Isis will help accelerate this process, not harm it.

Ronnie Campbell, the Labour MP, asks why countries in the region like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not taking action. Why does it have to be Britain?

Cameron says countries like Turkey and Jordan are taking action.

Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP, says she has motherly advice for Cameron. He should say people can vote for or against the government without being terrorist sympathisers.

Cameron says he agrees. People can vote either way with honour.

Liam Byrne, the Labour MP, says if Cameron was asking for narrow permission to take out Isis’s planning capabilities, people would have supported him. But he is asking for more, says Byrne.

Byrne is voting against the government.

Cameron says Bryne should not underestimate what ground troops can do. The ones available can make a difference.

And once a political transition starts, more will be available.

Turning to the issue of ground forces, Cameron says he told MPs last week there were 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters.

There is a limit to what he can say, he says. He does not want to jeopardise their safety.

The figure is from the joint intelligence committee, he says. He says most are from the Free Syrian Army.

In addition to the 70,000, there are 20,000 Kurdish fighters, he says.

He says these fighters are not ideal. Some are former Syrian army troops.

But some of them could be partners in a political transition, he says.

Last week I told the house that we believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters who do not belong to extremist groups and with whom we can coordinate attacks on Daesh. The House will appreciate there are some limits on what I can say about these groups, not least that I can’t risk the safety of these courageous people who are being targeted daily by the regime, or by Daesh, or by both. But I know that this is an area of great interest and concern for the House, so let me try and say a little more.

The 70,000 is an estimate from [the] independent joint intelligence committee based on a detailed analysis updated on a daily basis and drawing on a wide range of open source and intelligence. Of these 70,000, the majority are from the Free Syrian Army. Alongside the 70,000, there are some 20,000 Kurdish fighters with whom we can also work. I am not arguing – and this is a crucial point – that all of these 70,000 are ideal partners. Some though left the Syrian army because of Assad’s brutality and they clearly can play a role in the future of Syria and that is actually a view that is taken by the Russians as well, who are prepared to talk with these people.

George Kerevan, the SNP MP, says Isis has changed its tactics since airstrikes started. It has dispersed, making it harder for the coalition to bomb it.

Cameron says of course Isis (or Daesh) has changed its tactics. But that is not an argument for doing nothing.

Stephen Doughty, the Labour MP, asks what will be done to minimise civilian casualties. And what will the targets be?

Cameron says the RAF will go after the leaders of this “death cult”, and their communications and training facilities.

He repeats the point about there being no civilian casualties in Iraq from British bombing.

Rehman Chishti, the Conservative MP, welcomes Cameron’s decision to use the term Daesh. Does he agree that the BBC should use this term too? He says the BBC says it cannot do so because it would breach their rules on impartiality.

Prime minister, can I first of all thank you for that change in terminology and all members of parliament across the House for their support in this. Will the prime minister join me in urging the BBC to review their bizarre policy, when they wrote to me to say that they cannot use the word Daesh because it would breach their impartiality rules. We are at war with terrorists, prime minister. We have to defeat their ideology, their appeal, we have to be united in that. Will he join me in urging the BBC to review their bizarre policy.

Cameron says he has written to the BBC about this.

I agree with my honourable friend and I’ve already corresponded to the BBC about their use of IS, Islamic State, which I think is even worse, frankly, than either saying so-called IS or indeed Isil, but Daesh is clearly an improvement and I think it is important we all try and use this language.

Cameron turns to the question about why Britain does not just increase airstrikes in Iraq.

It makes no sense not to use the RAF’s capabilities across the border that Isis do not recognise.

He says in a recent incident the RAF were eight minutes away from attacking Isis. But Isis were on the wrong side of the border, so the RAF could not intervene to protect those under threat from Isis. They had to wait 40 minutes for aircraft from another nation to arrive.

Cameron says in Iraq the UK is providing up to a third of the precision-bombing capability.

That is why the French president has said having British planes involved in Syria would make a real difference.

(We are adding the best direct quotes to some posts after they have been launched, but to see them you may need to refresh the page. If you are going to be reading during the day, do refresh the page regularly to be sure of seeing all the updates.)

Cameron says 800 people from the UK have travelled to join Isis. The threat is very real. They attack us because of who we are, not what we are.

The SNP’s John Nicolson asks Cameron to identify which MPs are terrorist sympathisers.

Cameron says MPs can speak for themselves.

Cameron turns to terminology.

He says he is going to use the term Daesh as often as he can, following the example set by France, the Arab League, and others.

Having carefully considered the strong representations made to me by the honourable member for Gillingham and Rainham [Rehman Chishti, who has been campaigning for a change of terminology], having listened to many members of parliament across the House, I think it’s time to join our key ally France, the Arab League and other members of the international community in using as frequently as possible the terminology Daesh rather than Isil because frankly this evil death cult is neither a true representation of Islam nor is it a state.

Labour’s Emily Thornberry intervenes. On a point of terminology, she urges him to apologise for his “terrorist sympathisers” comment. It was “offensive” and “untrue”, she says.

Cameron ignores her request for an apology.

Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP, asks Cameron where it specifies in the motion that British ground troops will not be deployed.

Cameron says he will not deploy them because that would be a mistake. It would make matters worse.

But he accepts that this means defeating Isis will take longer.

Cameron addresses the key questions raised.

1) Will this increase the chance of the UK being attacked?

2) Will British involvement make a difference?

3) Why doesn’t Britain just increase the level of attacks in Iraq?

4) What forces will take the Isis territory on the grounds?

5) What is the strategy to defeat Isis?

6) What is the plan for post-conflict reconstruction.

Cameron says he hopes MPs will see the influence the House has had on the motion. For example, it focus on only targeting Isis, on the importance of avoiding civilian casualties and on the importance of a political settlement.

Tom Brake, a Lib Dem, says he will be supporting the government, but that he thinks Cameron should apologise for his comments about Labour. What will Cameron do to avoid civilian casualties?

Cameron says that Britain has been bombing in Iraq for one year and three months without civilian casualties. He says getting Britain involved in the coalition will make its bombing more accurate.

(So much for the No 10 line about Cameron using the term Daesh - see 10.29am. He is calling it Isil in his speech.)

Cameron says Britain should take responsibility for its own defence. He says it should not rely on other nations.

Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative, says he has just returned from Iraq. Everyone told him Britain should attack Isis in Syria, he says. They said if it did not, Isis would return to take the cities it used to hold in Iraq.

Alex Salmond, the SNP foreign affairs spokesman, says 110 MPs signed the cross-party amendment. Not one of them is a terrorist sympathiser. Will Cameron apologise?

The prime minister is facing an amendment signed by 110 members of this house, from six different political parties. I’ve examined that list very carefully. I cannot identify a single terrorist sympathiser among that list. Will he now apologise for his deeply insulting remarks?

Cameron says he has made it clear this is about how you fight terrorism. There is honour on both sides, he says.

I have made it very clear that this is about how we fight terrorism and there is honour in any vote that honourable members make.

Cameron says the threat from Isis is real. The question is, what do we do about it.

John Woodcock, a pro-airstrikes Labour MP, says it would be helpful for Cameron to withdraw his “terrorist sympathisers” remark. But he says it will not affect how MPs vote. And nor will criticism from anti-war campaigners, Woodcock says.

Will he be reassured that nobody on this side of the House will make a decision based on any such remarks or will we be threatened from doing what we believe is the right thing. Whether those threats come from online activists or indeed from our own dispatch box.

Cameron says he agrees. There is honour on both sides, he says.

MPs approve the timetable motion (suspending normal questions).

Bercow says he will take a vote on John Baron’s amendment (see 9.30am), as well as the main motion, at 10pm.

Pete Wishart, the SNP spokesman, says he also thinks two days should have been allowed.

Chris Grayling, the leader of the House, says he will not take up any more time discussing the timetable motion.

Bercow reprimands Bryant for telling MPs what the time limit was going to be. If he has something to announce, he will announce it, he says.

Chris Bryant, the shadow leader of the Commons, is speaking on the business motion about the timetable.

He says 87 Labour MPs want to speak, and 70 Tories.

Bercow will announce a five-minute limit on backbench speeches, he says. That will come down to four and three minutes.

He says David Cameron should have allowed a two-day debate.

Bercow says 157 MPs want to speak in the debate.

He says he will try to fit them all in.

John Bercow, the Speaker, is calling order.

A Labour source in the pro-airstrikes camp, who yesterday thought there would be about 30-40 Labour MPs voting with the government, says he now expects the figure to be closer to 40. He does not think David Cameron’s “terrorist sympathisers” comment is making Labour MPs less likely to support him.

This is from the New Statesman’s George Eaton.

David Cameron is planning to use his speech in the Commons to say that his comment about “terrorist sympathisers” in a private meeting with Tory MPs last night was not intended to refer to all those opposed to airstrikes.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has posted her thoughts on the debate on Twitter.

Former first minister of Scotland and SNP MP Alex Salmond has been speaking to BBC Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme, where he said his party had always been “suspicious of military adventures”.

I think the prime minister’s language is an indication of desperation, because he sees that the support he thought he had is starting to slip away as his case for extending airstrikes into Syria starts to disintegrate on examination ... Some of the prime minister’s claims start to disintegrate like dust, like the claim for example that there are 70,000 available ground troops who are going to step into the vacuum which will be released if Daesh is forced to concede ground in Syria. It is just not true, it is not credible. As these claims start to disintegrate, the support for this action starts to ebb away.

The SNP will vote against military action in Syria and Labour’s only surviving MP in Scotland, Ian Murray, will also oppose airstrikes. Scotland’s only Lib Dem MP, Alistair Carmichael, and only Conservative MP, David Mundell, will both vote in favour.

Labour MP Dan Jarvis – a former member of the parachute regiment – has been on Sky News explaining why he expects to vote in support of airstrikes:

In the end, it is my judgment that the action is the right thing for our country and for my constituents. I am incredibly mindful of the threat that Isil pose. Let’s not forget what happened in Paris, let’s not forget that 30 British holidaymakers were murdered on a beach in Tunisia, let’s not forget that there have been seven foiled terror attacks on this country this year alone.

We have to make a difficult judgment. I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t do what I thought was the right thing for my constituents and for the country, and that’s what I’m going to do.

Writing for us a few days before Cameron set out his case for extending airstrikes to Syria last Thursday, Jarvis set out his five tests for backing military action. He wrote that it would need to be clear that British involvement would make a difference to the situation in Syria and that military action should be accompanied by a diplomatic plan to broker a political agreement. Jarvis also said that UK economic power as well as military resources should be committed, that the prime minister would need to provide assurances that post-conflict reconstruction was not being treated as an afterthought, and that any plan included measures to strengthen community cohesion in the UK. He must think that Cameron’s case has past these five tests.

The Labour MP John Mann, who is voting against airstrikes, has called on Jeremy Corbyn to expel party members who threaten MPs over how they vote on Syria. He told the Press Association.

The level of abuse over the last four months is on a totally, totally different scale from anything ever before. It is directly linked to people purporting to support Jeremy. He should remove this intolerant minority. They have no place in a progressive leftwing party. None of them have been disciplined yet, nevermind expelled and he should start doing so.

It is deliberate bullying. I have received tweets and emails, some are random but some seem to be orchestrated by groups both inside and outside the party. Threats of deselection are at the mild end of it. There is every kind of name-calling you can think of. There is no place in the Labour party for people who are going to abuse others in the run-up to an important debate and vote.

Last night the Labour MP Diana Johnson posted on Facebook a message she had received saying that MPs who backed airstrikes would have blood on their hands and would face no confidence motions.

My colleague Kareem Shaheen has been trying to find out what people in Raqqa feel about the prospect of Britain launching airstrikes against Isis in Syria and has filed this.

Residents in Raqqa are looking to Britain joining the air campaign against Isis primarily with nonchalance, as many perceive the coalition campaign as ineffective at stemming the expansion of Isis and that it is primarily aimed at containing the militants rather than destroying them.

Still, those who oppose the terror group view Britain joining the coalition in Syria positively.

‘Britain has a powerful intelligence service and knows where to strike and when, not like the coalition you feel they just want to launch missiles on Isis headquarters even if they’re empty,’ said Tim Ramadan, the pseudonym of an activist and journalist working clandestinely in the city with Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, a group documenting Isis crimes.

Ramadan said few residents actually fear coalition airstrikes. While children and the elderly are often startled and disturbed by the sounds of the explosions, the airstrikes tend to not hit civilian areas. Most, however, fear any news of Russian airstrikes as they tend to target civilian neighbourhoods, the activists say.

‘The airstrikes have become routine, and people believe the international community does not want to end Daesh, they just want to weaken it,’ he said, using the Arabic acronym for the group. Despite the coalition campaign, Isis this year seized the historic city of Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province in Iraq.

However, he said that when the militants hide in neighbourhoods and other safe houses during the airstrikes, the women in the city, who are often sequestered in their homes, find a brief breathing space.

‘You see them going to their balconies and windows, to breathe the fresh air and look at their city,’ he said. ‘The people get a brief opening of freedom.’

It is extraordinarily difficult to assess the overall mood in Raqqa. Isis has banned almost all avenues for accessing the internet at home, and has issued a standing order for over a month now that bars anyone from leaving the city except in extraordinary medical circumstances.

There are two Ulster Unionist party MPs in the Commons, and they plan to vote with the government. In a statement this morning Tom Elliott, the UUP MP, said:

The Ulster Unionist party has indicated for some time that if the conditions set out by the prime minister on military intervention in Syria were reasonable that our MPs would support the action.

We have now seen the motion and believe that it is a framework in line with the United Nations charter and United Nations security council resolution 2249 ...

We think from the wording of the motion it is clear that the UK government has learned the lessons of past wars, particularly the legacy that will be left for the people of Syria.

The DUP has already said its eight MPs will vote with the government. The three SDLP MPs will vote against. It is not yet clear how Lady Sylvia Hermon, the independent unionist, will vote.

Three amendments have also been tabled to the motion.

The main cross-party, anti-airstrikes amendment has been tabled by the Conservative MP John Baron, the SNP’s Angus Robertson, Labour’s Graham Allen, Plaid Cyrmu’s Hywel Williams, the SDLP’s Alasdair McDonnell and the Green MP Caroline Lucas.

It has been signed by another 105 MPs, mostly from Labour and the SNP.

It says:

Line 1, leave out from ‘House’ to end and add ‘, while welcoming the renewed impetus towards peace and reconstruction in Syria, and the government’s recognition that a comprehensive strategy against Daesh is required, does not believe that the case for the UK’s participation in the ongoing air campaign in Syria by 10 countries has been made under current circumstances, and consequently declines to authorise military action in Syria.’

There is another amendment, tabled by the Labour MP Barry Gardiner and supported by four other Labour MPs and the Tory Sir Edward Leigh, rejecting the government’s plan on the grounds it does not represent “a coherent and comprehensive military strategy that has a real chance of successfully eradicating [Isis].

And Leigh has signed a third amendment to the government’s motion saying the government should only take military action against Isis “in self-defence”.

On the face of it, it is hard to understand quite how much passion and interest tonight’s Commons vote on Syria is generating. Britain is already engaged in airstrikes against Islamic State (Isis, or Isil, or Daesh) in Iraq and what David Cameron is proposing is just to extend those a few hundred miles into Syria. Only a handful of RAF bombers would be involved and, although Cameron is claiming they could make a signifcant difference, no one is pretending they would be decisive. In no way is this the same as the vote to go to war in Iraq in 2003.

And yet in some ways it feels as if it is. Why? Partly because this is the first really controversial vote on military action in the age of social media and all those who feel engaged can now replay the Iraq contest through Twitter. (There was a key vote on Syria in 2013, but what’s often forgotten is that by the time MPs voted Cameron had already taken military action out of the motion under Labour pressure. And there was a vote on Iraq in 2014, but only 43 MPs were opposed.) The other key factor is that this has become a debate about the identity and the future of the Labour party. In an almost unprecedented move, two Labour positions will be set out today in the Commons from the frontbench; Jeremy Corbyn, the leader, will effectively be speaking for Labour (the Momentum/activist wing) when he opposes airstrikes in his response to Cameron, while later Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, will be speaking for Labour (the much smaller establishment right faction) when he closes the debate with a speech in favour.

Cameron seems certain to win the vote. So what’s the story? What will we actually learn from the debate?

1) Policy. Cameron will be under pressure to say more about what British airstrikes might achieve, and also to justify his claim that there are 70,000 “moderate” opposition fighters in Syria who could fight Isis on the ground. During the debate we should should get some answers to these and other policy questions.

2) Political parties. The Conservatives are reasonably united behind Cameron, but Labour is in a state of flux, moving further on its journey from the party of Tony Blair to the party of Stop the War. By the end of tonight we’ll have a firmer view about where the centre of gravity in the party lies. This morning the Corbynites seem in a stronger position than they did on Monday afternoon.

3) People. How MPs vote on matters of war is career-defining. Where Tory MPs stood on appeasement in the 1930s helped to decide leadership contests into the 1950s and even the 1960s, and Ed Miliband would never have become Labour leader in 2010 if he had voted for Iraq. Corbyn’s victory this summer was also, partly, a delayed backlash against Iraq. Future Labour leadership contests may be decided by how people vote tonight.

Latest developments

Here are the key overnight developments:

• David Cameron has told Tory MPs in a private meeting that they should not vote alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”. He seemed to be making a comment about Corbyn and John McDonnell’s views about the IRA, rather than saying that all those opposed to airstrikes were terrorist sympathisers, but not surprisingly that is not how it has come across. It is a grievous mistake by Cameron, who last week was going to great lengths to win the support of Labour MPs. Corbyn’s office called the comment a “despicable slur”. Today Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, said Cameron did not intend his comment to apply to all those opposed to airstrikes. Hammond told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.

I suspect that [Cameron] was referring to some high-profile comments that people like Ken Livingstone have recently made, which, in my view, are extremely ill-advised and do betray a long strand of sympathy for people that, frankly, most of us would have no sympathy for. I don’t think the prime minister was intending to characterise the great majority of people who are against us in this debate as in any way holding those views.

We know that many people on the other side of this debate will have wrestled long and hard with their consciences.

• Tim Farron has said the Lib Dems are in favour of airstrikes.

• Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, has said that US airstrikes against Isis have not had an effect, but that Russian airstrikes against it are making a difference.

Background to the debate

This Guardian article explains the background to the debate, especially in relation to what is happening in Syria, in great detail.

Timings

11.30am: Cameron opens the debate.

10pm: MPs vote

I will be covering the debate in detail with my colleague Frances Perraudin, bringing you reaction and analysis as it goes on.

If you want to contact us on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow and Frances is on @fperraudin