Home » Uncategorized (Page 22)
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Tell your MP: “all necessary measures” – against war
The Labour Party decided at its conference this year that military intervention in Syria by the UK should not take place without
- authorisation from the United Nations;
- a comprehensive plan for humanitarian assistance for any refugees who may be displaced by the action;
- assurances that the bombing is directed exclusively at military targets associated with ISIS;
- the subordination of any military action to international diplomatic efforts to end the war in Syria.
I’m not sure if the UN Security Council’s post-Paris call to take “all necessary measures” against ISIS counts as authorisation, although I think David Cameron thinks it does. It looks like he will present proposals for bombing to the House of Commons this week or next and he’s been telling the French president not to worry: it’ll be “shoulder to shoulder” again apparently.
A good many Labour MPs are flexing their shoulders in anticipation of voting with the Tories and against the Labour conference decision and the advice of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and others. They’re jumping the gun, of course, if you’ll pardon the expression. Even assuming that the Security Council’s “all necessary measures” count as authorisation, there are three other Labour Party conference criteria to be met before Labour MPs should even consider hoisting their shoulders into war. The Guardian thought that meeting all four criteria would be difficult if not impossible “in the short term”. Or in the long term, I would add. Even if, by sleight of hand or smoke and mirrors, Hilary Benn, say, declared they had been met, those vague criteria couldn’t possibly guarantee that refugees would be protected, that only military targets associated with ISIS would be bombed, or that international diplomatic efforts would be able to end the war in Syria while the politicians “pitilessly” (the word used by the French president) extend it.
Politicians quite like shoulder-flexing. But we must absolutely refuse to give them permission. Although John McDonnell has suggested that Labour MPs might have a free vote, I’ve told my MP (Alan Johnson) to vote against war. Please tell yours. And sign a petition, pass a resolution in your union branch, or at your local Labour Party meeting, and go on a demo.
Because the truth is that the history of previous shoulder-to-shoulder events (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, then back to Iraq again) cries out for them not to do it again. It doesn’t work. It won’t work with French shoulders either. What it will do (to use a phrase that was quite often used by my mother) is send us all to buggery.
In today’s Guardian, Frankie Boyle argues that “Britain clings to its bombing addiction with the weary rationale of a junkie.” He concludes:
“If we wanted to get well as a society, we would end up like anyone in recovery: sitting around a table talking, having awkward conversations and making compromises. Instead, a few months from now, we’ll be dealing with the kind of horror that is unleashed when British MPs are told they can vote with their consciences.”
Jeremy and John, I don’t know how you’re going to play this but, given the malleability of many Labour MPs’ consciences in the past, I don’t feel safe with a free vote.
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.
Complaint to Channel 4 News
I sent the following complaint to Channel 4 News tonight:
“On Channel 4 News tonight Matt Frei claimed that there was not going to be a debate on Trident at this week’s Labour Party Conference because Jeremy Corbyn “shied away from it, apparently. The unions backed him up.” No evidence was presented for this claim, and the rest of the report seemed to demonstrate the opposite of both those statements. For one thing, on arrival at the Conference Corbyn is interviewed showing no signs of “shying away”, and he clearly expects a debate and wants it. He says:
“There will be a debate on Trident, of that I’m sure. Conference will come to pass a decision, possibly they’ll refer this to elsewhere – to be quite honest, at this very moment I don’t know.”
But Matt Frei was determined to present him as “shying away” from a debate at Conference and says, “The unions backed him up.” However, Gary Gibbon, momentarily singing from another hymn sheet, blamed the vote against a debate on two unions with members in the defence industry: they “wouldn’t back Jeremy Corbyn”. That, presumably, is the Jeremy Corbyn who wanted a debate not the mythical “shying away” figure conjured up by Matt Frei. Gary Gibbon, however, seems to have been given Matt Frei’s hymn sheet in the end and declared of Corbyn: “He’s avoided a bloody fight here he really didn’t want” – presumably “avoided” is slightly more polite than “shied away”.
Perhaps this might be explained by the rough-and-tumble of journalists trying to piece together a complicated story which has to be edited to fit the very short Sunday-night edition of the programme. Unfortunately for such a generous explanation, Matt Frei, in the comfort of the studio, pursued his theme in his interview with Lisa Nandy, still without producing evidence for his claims. He stated as fact that Corbyn had “shut down” the debate on Trident. He then went further, saying that “shutting down the debate on Trident … was surely doing what Labour used to do, which was trying to control things from the top.”
It’s difficult not to conclude that the aim of Channel 4 News in this report was to set up Jeremy Corbyn as a fixer of the old school and a hypocrite. If Corbyn ever became those things you would have a duty to report it. But don’t cynically assume it from the start and doctor the evidence.”
They promise to reply. I’ll let you know.
We must be brave – and not just leave it to Jeremy
Jeremy Corbyn has resigned as Chair of Stop the War. In his statement he says:
“I am sure you all understand the reasons – it is now my job to lead the Labour Party, including in the struggle for peace and international justice, and that is demanding my undivided attention.”
We can certainly understand that. And he also says:
“In stepping down as Chair, I want to make absolutely clear my continuing solidarity with the Coalition and its work against wars of intervention.”
We would certainly expect no less from him.
But if we recognise the demands of the Labour leadership on Jeremy’s time we must also recognise the pressures on him when it comes to Labour Party policymaking too, and that maybe those pressures are also a factor in his decision to resign. For the pressures are arguably having an impact. Although he is still against the renewal of Trident missiles he nevertheless has to, as he has said, have a debate in the Labour Party and try to persuade them of his case. Naturally, he recognises the dangers involved and, if he loses, he says he will submit to that defeat because, as he told Jon Snow, “I’m a democrat.”
Likewise, though he is still against NATO, he is not now arguing for leaving it but for making it democratic. When Owen Jones suggested that the UK should develop a “constructive role” within NATO, Lindsay German (Convenor of Stop the War) mocked the idea on Facebook: “A constructive role for Britain in Nato? Please!” Her comment is also surely appropriate to the notion that there could be a democratic NATO.
Likewise again: there are reports that people are urging him to allow a free vote on airstrikes on Syria to avoid open warfare in the parliamentary party. This, however, would enable Labour’s old guard to rally support for any Tory proposals in the next few weeks to join airstrikes. And then there would be airstrikes. What to do?
What he clearly wants to do on all the issues raised during the past few months is widen the debate and decision-making, so that it’s not just Labour MPs that make policy decisions but the wider Labour Party – including all the new members who joined during the leadership campaign and afterwards. Let’s hope he can do it, and let’s hope it works.
Whatever he does, of course, he’s damned by somebody. And he’s a brave man for starting down this road. And I want him to succeed – to win the arguments and the battles and become prime minister in a government that changes the face of British politics. I certainly don’t want him to end up like the left-wing hero of Chris Mullin’s novel, who became prime minister but then became the victim of “a very British coup”![1] But neither do I want him to be trapped into making so many concessions that in the end there’s no sign of the reasons we voted for him in the first place.
So in the afterglow of the leadership election result we dare not underestimate the forces against him: the Tories, of course; but also Labour’s old establishment knocked off their perches for now, but eager to clamber back up; the media; the security agencies; and any number of dirty-tricks departments. And he needs our active support.
So here’s an idea: perhaps all of us who paid our £3 to vote for him should now bite the bullet, refuse to be couch potatoes, and instead become full Labour Party members and be the counterweight to the forces against him.
Now, there’s brave for you.
Here’s Jeremy’s statement: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/jeremy-corbyn-statement-to-the-stop-the-war-conference-19-september-2015
[1] Mullin, Chris (2006), A Very British Coup, Politicos (Methuen), London.
Answering the question asked – a new approach in British politics
This exchange took place last night on Channel 4 News between Jon Snow and John McDonnell, Labour’s newly appointed shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had a slightly odd start because Snow had been asking about economic questions. He said that trust (by the electorate) would be important. “The last Labour government”, Snow said, “left Britain with the worst deficit since the Second World War.” MacDonnell nodded. Snow continued, “And establishing trust is difficult.” Then without any warning he changed the direction of the interview:
“Snow I mean, if we take your case, for example, if we take something like what you said about the IRA, people will find that very hard to understand …
McDonnell [nods] Yes.
Snow … Why would one honour the IRA with their guns and bullets? – to quote you.
McD Yes, I need to explain quite a bit, and I’ll do it briefly if you don’t mind. This was 13 years ago at a time when the peace process was extremely fragile, and we were worried at that stage that, if elements within the IRA, or the Republican movement, thought they were going to be humiliated and defeated, there’d be a major split, and that way the bombings and the military campaign would continue on. So some of us had to go out there – I might not have chosen the right words – but actually explain to them that they could stand down with dignity, they weren’t being defeated, they were standing down, they could put their weapons all aside – and I was saying that to both sides. Now, I know as a result of that I got attacked, but actually it worked, and if it saved one life it was worth it.”
Two things: it’s interesting that by this account people like McDonnell (Republican sympathisers, who had for a long time been accused of being IRA apologists) were absolutely essential to keep the peace process going. It wasn’t just Blair and Clinton, and Senator this and Representative that, the great and the good who all got medals. Nevertheless the McDonnells and the Corbyns have been vilified and sidelined ever since.
Secondly, Corbyn’s approach to Hamas and Palestine/Israel seems similar: “We have to talk to Hamas, we can’t just ignore them.” He’s been criticised for saying that and for meeting Hamas but reckons that everybody knows it’s true, including Israel, and says, “Blair has spoken to Hamas more times than I have.” But it seems that Blair, our ludicrously named “peace envoy”, had little success in bringing the several sides together. There’s no surprise in that. It needs someone with a bit of form to get in there.
Vilified and sidelined, did I say? Well, until now. Because now, Corbyn has proved himself electable. And McDonald had a fairly optimistic take on the future in the interview:
“Snow … why is it that so many of your colleagues think that you are so far out as to be unfit to be Chancellor?
McD Well, it’s because in this place [the House of Commons] I’ve had to oppose a lot of things and sometimes that’s meant swimming against the stream, and that has meant Jeremy and I have been isolated. But actually we were right on many of these issues – we were right on Iraq, we were right to vote against the privatisations, we were right to vote against the cuts that even New Labour introduced to benefits. So I think we’ve been proven right. And I think the tide is now with us.”
And I, for one, hope you’re right, John.
Babe-in-arms
But for the grace,
Put down your
Fearful vanity
Rise up
Reach out
With Love
Embrace
In every face
Your own Humanity
~
Life’s Hope captured
In the tiny stillness
Of immeasurable sorrow,
Be not in vain,
Else here, then, lies
Where all the World’s tomorrows die.
~
Aylan Kurdi, Galip, Rehan, may your Light shine in the darkness.
A plea for sanity. Mine.
I have sent the following plea to Andy Burnham in response to the latest email he sent out in his attempt to become the next leader of the Labour Party:
“Andy,
I have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. I am not a member of any other party and my values are, as far as I can see, Labour ones. In your latest email, you say (in an apparent swipe at Jeremy Corbyn), “We’re … at grave risk of returning to the in-fighting of the early 80s”. I’m sorry to have to say it, Andy, but if anyone is engaging in “in-fighting” it’s you, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper. Jeremy Corbyn’s behaviour is as far from that as it could possibly be. He has gained enormous support and enthusiasm by talking about his policies (that seems to be what you mean by “in-fighting”), and his meetings get larger. The irony is, of course, that the more popular – and surely, therefore, electable – he becomes, the more you all claim he’s unelectable. Can you stop doing this please? It’s doing my head in.
Yours,
Bob Mouncer”
It will come as no surprise, dear reader, when I tell you that, within seconds of receiving my how-to-vote instructions from the Labour Party, I cast my vote for Jeremy. Please do it if you can. While you’re thinking about it. Like, now.
Bob Mouncer's blog 