Some worries about looking too responsible
I assume that John McDonnell’s original “we’ll vote for it” take on the government’s Charter for Budget Responsibility was about trying to reassure people that Labour was taking a “mature” approach to public finance, etc. “We’re not irresponsible, profligate spenders, we’ll balance the books, we know what good housekeeping means” was the message. But he was wrong. Voting for the Charter would have meant voting for the consequences of the Charter under a Tory government – increasing austerity for the poor, increasing wealth for the rich. He was right to make a U-turn.
Unfortunately, I think he’s trying to look “responsible” again, this time on his approach to Tory cuts to working tax credits. He has written a letter to George Osborne asking him to please think again:
“What I’ve said to George Osborne is I think he should do a U-turn on this one … [I]f he does a U-turn in full to protect people in the tax-credit system I will not make political hay out of it – in fact I’ll support the government” (Channel 4 News, 25 October 2015).
But why would Osborne respond positively to a polite request to do a U-turn? The government isn’t interested in protecting vulnerable people. Its aim is to exploit them, to punish them for asking for more, and to demonise them. That’s why a single parent with two children, working at two jobs and working 16.5 hours a week will lose £16 a week when the cuts come into force; it’s why a single parent working 16 hours a week and earning £8,500 a year will lose £16 a week. Someone on Channel 4 News (I can’t remember who it was, somebody in the House of Lords opposing the policy) said that the government didn’t realise the consequences of its own policy. Get real, Lady Whoever-you-are, of course they realise the consequences of what they’re doing – that’s why they’re doing it.
So when John McDonnell told Andrew Marr on Sunday that the situation for people on working tax credit has become so serious that it’s above politics he was wrong. Cameron and Osborne will ridicule him for that. For them it’s politics, their politics, always has been. So he shouldn’t be offering to support the government in any deal based on a breakable, spin-doctored promise by the Tories to protect vulnerable people. Instead let’s have more of the John McDonnell who said, when the Welfare Bill made its first appearance in the Commons before Corbyn’s election and the then Labour “opposition” decided to abstain in the vote on it:
“I would swim through vomit to vote against this Bill – and, judging by some of the speeches I’ve heard so far, I may have to …”
If the pressure to make the offer to Osborne came in part from Labour’s old guard – the Blairites and Gawd-knows-what-ites who lost Labour the last election – then they need to be pulled into line. I know, in a way, it’s easy for me to say that. I don’t have to do it. But I saw some hope in Jeremy Corbyn’s election, especially by such a majority, and the appointment of John McDonnell as shadow Chancellor. And I blogged here that those of us who voted for Corbyn as supporters should join the Labour Party as members. So I’ve just been to my first Constituency Labour Party meeting for 30 years. And I shall continue to go, and do whatever I can do. But we need to be tough. We mustn’t make ourselves look naïve. And we mustn’t bother about proving how responsible we are when what is “responsible” and what is not is defined by the Tories.
A chance to break the cycle of war?
Before you read this, David Cameron may have announced that he will put his proposals for UK airstrikes on ISIL in Syria to parliament this week. If the Commons votes Yes to those proposals it will make UK military support for US attacks official, as opposed to the till-now-unofficial support, most of which has been unacknowledged, although we learnt belatedly of the drone attack that killed two UK citizens quite recently.
How should Labour MPs vote?
On the face of it, they ought to vote No. The Labour Party Conference in September voted against military action in Syria unless four strict conditions were met. The proposer of the emergency motion, Ivan Monckton, a member of Unite, made his reasons for proposing the motion clear. For one thing, he doesn’t want the party involved in “another illegal war”. Plus (and what a plus it is):
“The repeated British interventions into the Middle East at the behest of the US have seen huge resources ploughed into conflicts – each of which has further destabilised the region, creating still more refugees and led to uncounted civilian deaths.
“It is time to break this cycle of war, which is why this party must tell Cameron to pause for thought. Over the past year, there have been some 6,000 airstrikes on Iraq and Syria by the US and its allies. They have dropped over 20,000 bombs.
“The outcome has been that Isis has expanded the territory that it controls still further. There is no evidence that more bombing will lead to a different outcome.”
And the four conditions?
- Military action must have UN authorisation.
- There must be a comprehensive plan for humanitarian assistance for refugees displaced by the action.
- The bombing must be directed exclusively at military targets associated with ISIL.
- Military action must be subordinated to international diplomatic efforts to end the war in Syria.
To quote Rajeev Syal in The Guardian: “The conditions will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet in the short term.”[1] So, if conditions aren’t met, how should MPs vote?
You know already, dear reader, what I’m going to say. They should vote No.
But will they? About half the shadow cabinet is against a No vote. About 50 Labour MPs seem to be conspiring with the Tories to ensure a Yes vote.[2] Plus, Rajeev Syal tells us that “conference motions are advisory rather than binding”. I believe him. There’s a long history of conference decisions made in Brighton, Blackpool and Scarborough which have then been routinely trampled on by Labour leaderships after the conference has safely ended. This history goes back at least to Harold Wilson and probably even further – but I shouldn’t claim more than I can remember!
But we are in a new era now, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn. Policy is no longer to be imposed but debated by the party and agreed. This policy has been debated and agreed. If time had allowed it, there could have been a longer and wider debate right across the party branches, taking into full account the views of the new influx of members and supporters – the kind of debate that Jeremy Corbyn is arguing for. But time waits for nobody. If that had happened I suspect the answer would have been an even more resounding No to another war.
So I’ve written to Alan Johnson (he’s my MP – it’s best to start at home, eh?!) asking him to vote No.
There’s talk of a “free vote” for MPs on grounds of “conscience”. This is part of Jeremy’s willingness to listen to opponents, to be democratic, inclusive, to put an end to the old undemocratic, contemptuous ways of the past (Wilson saw his critics as dogs that could be told to stop barking: “Every dog has his day,” said he.) But I want Jeremy to do something else now, and he can do it without giving up his clearly demonstrated commitment to democracy, inclusiveness and respect. He has a wider audience to listen to and to heed than just the Parliamentary Labour Party. There’s all of us – who, when he stood for the leadership, saw some light at the end of the tunnel. Now, to make that more than wishful thinking, Jeremy needs to listen to us all, forget free votes, and pull Labour MPs into line behind a democratic conference decision and a mass movement that demanded and still demands change.
[1] Syal, R., “Labour conference sets terms for supporting UK military action in Syria”, The Guardian, 30 September 2015.
[2] Helm, T. & Boffey, D., “More than 50 Labour MPs to defy Jeremy Corbyn in vote on Syria”, The Observer, 10 October 2015.
“Reply” to complaint
I have received a reply to my complaint about the Channel 4 News report on the Labour Conference decision not to have a debate on Trident:
“Dear Mr Mouncer,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding CHANNEL 4 NEWS: Labour Avoids Trident Debate.
We appreciate the time you have taken to write to us and I am sorry to read of your concerns with the report. Please be assured that your feedback has been forwarded to the News Editor to consider for future reports.
Bob Mouncer's blog 