It’s official: Labour has no policy on bombing Syria. In a desperate attempt to placate his hostile front bench, Jeremy Corbyn has backed down on whipping his MPs to support party policy (which he believes is against air strikes). I fear they will respect him even less for letting them have their way.
Governments invariably whip their MPs on really important matters of state such as going to war. Parties that aspire to government are expected to do likewise. Certainly, Tony Blair always used to whip his MPs.
It didn't always work, of course, and Mr Corbyn MP was notorious for not following the party line. Perhaps that's one reason he opted yesterday for a free vote, even though most of the Labour membership are opposed to air strikes, as his weekend consultation demonstrated.
Mr Corbyn has asked David Cameron for a longer debate to help Labour MPs make up their minds. But make no mistake: this is a green light for bombing in Syria. It seems inconceivable that Mr Corbyn will persuade his fractious MPs now to come into line when he has effectively abdicated his role as party leader.
Why would they? There is a significant number including the deputy leader, Tom Watson, who believe there is a compelling case for air strikes on Syria. These aren't all unreconstructed Blairites trying to bring down the leader.
Mr Corbyn's enemies certainly hope that his vacillation on this issue will hasten his political demise. They may well be right. This is the worst of both worlds. The Labour leader is opposed to bombing but he will now be blamed by many in his own party for failing to prevent it.
Nicola Sturgeon was quick to exploit the contradiction: “So a party that says it is anti-airstrikes” she tweeted “has just made a vote for airstrikes more likely. Go figure.”
The SNP leader is still technically “listening” to the arguments for and against, but it seems inconceivable now that the Nationalists will back David Cameron in the crucial vote, which must surely come within days.
Yet, according to commentators including the BBC’s assistant political editor, Norman Smith, opinion in the Labour party, even in the PLP, had been moving in Mr Corbyn’s direction. Labour MPs have been thinking carefully about going to war, discussing with their constituents, and many remain unconvinced that the case for war has been made.
Indeed, there is every sign that Jeremy Corbyn has captured the mood of the country with his scepticism about bombing Syria. There has been a wilting of support for going to war on another dodgy prospectus
People remember that Iraq was supposedly about tracking down weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be a figment of the CIA's imagination.
Then we had Afghanistan. The former defence secretary, John Reid, said in 2006 he hoped that British troops would leave “without a shot being fired”. In the event 12 million rounds were spent in the next three years alone.
The Libyan bombing in 2011 seemed an open-and-shut case. I supported it myself on the grounds that Col Gaddafi was using anti-aircraft guns against civilians and that a humanitarian catastrophe in Benghazi seemed imminent.
I was wrong. The bombing did nothing to resolve the situation and Libya is now a failed state and a hotbed of terrorism.
The Syrian situation is even more complex. We are being invited to join effectively with Russia in bombing Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria. Yet only a few months ago we were calling Vladimir Putin a pariah for siding with the distasteful Assad regime, which is also, of course, fighting IS.
So, who is fighting whom? It makes little difference to the benighted citizens of Raqqa who are being used as a human shield by IS and are being bombed by everyone. Only a ground force will displace IS, and that doesn't exist.
So what will bombing achieve? More civilian deaths in Raqqa and probably in Europe. Allied bombing will be used as propaganda to turn more misguided young European Muslims to the ways of terror.
David Cameron's claim that bombing Raqqa makes Britain safer is manifestly false. It does precisely the reverse.
If, perish the thought, some deluded British terrorist gets lucky, public opinion will do a hand-brake turn and people will be looking for people to blame. With his fateful capitulation, Mr Corbyn may now have put himself in the line of fire.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel