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.
Go, Jeremy!
According to The Guardian, “[Harriet Harman] has written to every Labour MP with the names of people in their constituency who have signed up as party members or registered as supporters since the election.” She “wants the MPs to report any of the new members or registered supporters who are members of other parties or are known troublemakers.”
Well, I’ve signed up as a supporter. I’m not a member of any other political party. I am, however, a known trouble-maker (ask my MP, Alan Johnson, who is, by the way, a known supporter of Yvette Cooper).
But Harriet is missing something important in all her talk of Labour under Jeremy being unelectable. The same Guardian story tells us: “Figures show that 20,000 new members and a further 21,000 registered supporters have signed up since nominations for the leadership closed.” If, as she seems to be implying, those thousands are Corbyn supporters, this surely means that Jeremy himself is very electable. These figures seem to show a kind of surge away from “they’re-all-the-same-ism” to a hope that Jeremy might not be an “all-the-same” person. Don’t you want an electable leader, Harriet?
Anyway, I invite Alan Johnson to check my credentials, revisit my emails, and send the results to Harriet. She will find that I was against (for example) all the wars since the Falklands, whether they were Tory wars or Labour wars; that I am against the jailing of asylum seekers (and their children), whether under Labour, Coalition or the present Tory government; against letting migrants drown in the Mediterranean or dogs being set on them in Calais; against the Welfare Bill; against austerity, either heavy or lite; and against the economic crisis being paid for by the poor rather than the bloated geniuses who caused it.
Go, Jeremy!
Here’s the Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/labour-must-end-the-madness-over-jeremy-corbyn-says-alan-johnson?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Let them know you’re not fooled
Here’s somebody standing up for the poor against the bloated. Jeremy Corbyn will vote against the government’s Welfare Bill. Sign the petition to show that not everybody swallows the government line, and not everybody thinks it’s “progressive” to condemn families to poverty:
jeremyforlabour.com/childtaxcredits
And remember: if you belong to a union or other organisation affiliated to the Labour Party, it may mean you can vote in the leadership election. If so, please vote. For Jeremy Corbyn. And remember that if he doesn’t get elected, we will have nothing to vote for in the next general election except three Tory parties.
Bob Mouncer's blog 