A few brief thoughts on this rather feeble debate

As I watch the not-very-good and very rushed  parliamentary debate on Syria (what is the hurry?), I am still amazed by the Prime Minister���s petulant folly in suggesting that those who are against his war are consorting with terrorist sympathisers.  How many of these MPs, reading from scripts rather than speaking properly, using ���degrade��� as an active verb, talking about ���ISIL��� or now ���Daesh���, which they can���t pronounce, and saying it is ���absurd that we are bombing Iraq but not Syria���, have lent their minds to the executive and accepted speeches from the Government whips?

There���s no doubt that this is what he thinks about his opponents. He is increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of opposition of any kind, and tends, I suspect, to see it as disloyal and subversive, not an essential function of good government. Despite all the praise given to him for being unusually relaxed in office, it may well be that his time in Downing Street is beginning to work its nasty magic, and he is losing touch with the actual world.

Certainly, if anything could lose him the vote (and I will hope that he does, and believe it possible that he will, until the result is announced) this mistake was that thing. I really hope it does.

This is not just because of its obvious stupidity, in lumping together everyone from Matthew Parris to me as consorters with terror sympathisers. It is because it betrays a complete misunderstanding of the way in which people���s minds work and the way in which they choose their opinions on matters of moment.